Wirecutter supports our readers with thousands of hours of reporting and testing to help you find the stuff you need in order to live a better life. You support us through our independently chosen links, which earn us a commission. Read more about what we do.

The Best Mirrorless Camera

Updated September 13, 2017

Your guide

Amadou Diallo

After 70 hours of research and testing over two years, we think if you’re looking to buy a mirrorless camera with pro-level performance alongside image quality that bests most DSLRs, the Fujifilm X-T2 is the camera to get.

With a street price approaching $2,000 bundled with a lens, buying the X-T2 is a significant investment in your photography. But what you receive in return is a rugged, weather-sealed camera; best-in-class viewfinder; 4K video capability; and a sensor that delivers impressively clean, detailed, and color-accurate images even at its highest ISO settings. All this in a retro-styled body with a well-designed layout of buttons and dials for fast, intuitive operation.

In addition to the 40 hours we spent poring over reviews and test results for 13 different models in the previous version of this guide, we spent another 30 hours of research, including several days of real-world shooting with the X-T2 alongside our previous pick, the Fujifilm X-T1. As a result, the X-T2 is now our pick for the best mirrorless camera in the $1,000-plus range.

At this price, great image quality below ISO 3,200 is a given in a camera at this level, as is the ability to change camera settings and shooting controls without diving into onscreen menus. And because these high-end models are aimed at working pros as well as serious hobbyists, you can expect durable, metal camera bodies that can stand up to daily abuse from the elements.

What sets the X-T2 apart is its ability to deliver impressively detailed images even at ISO 51,200, a whopping 325-point AF system, 4K video shooting, a clever dual-hinged rear screen that offers the practical benefits of a fold-out articulating screen but with less bulk, and access to a fantastic and ever-growing lineup of XF prime and zoom lenses. On top of all this is Fuji’s impressive track record of improving camera features and functionality via ongoing firmware updates. So there’s a very good chance that your X-T2 will become an even more capable camera over your time of ownership.

The Fujifilm X-T1 was our top pick in a previous version of this guide. Its follow-up, the X-T2 bests it with a faster and customizable autofocus system, a higher-resolution sensor that excels at the top of its ISO range, dual SD-card slots, and 4K video. If these features aren’t relevant to your style of photography, however, the X-T1 remains a formidable camera. Image quality is still among the best of any APS-C mirrorless camera, its all-metal body can stand up to daily abuse, and paired with one of Fuji’s growing body of weather-sealed lenses, you can take the X-T1 out shooting in any conditions. And with a current price significantly lower than our top pick, the X-T1 saves you enough cash to add an extra lens to your kit.

Also great

If you’re already invested in Micro Four Thirds lenses, the E-M1 II is the most capable model you can buy. You’ll pay a premium, however, and settle for lower image quality than larger sensor cameras deliver.

The Olympus E-M1 II is one of the fastest-focusing mirrorless cameras we’ve used, boasts a class-leading image stabilization system, and can shoot in continuous autofocus mode at a ground-breaking 18 fps, faster than even pro-grade DSLRs. It matches our top pick with a rugged weather-sealed exterior, 4K video, and direct access to camera and shooting settings for swift adjustment. Its smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor, with inherent image quality limitations, and high launch price keep it from knocking off our top pick. But if you already own Micro Four Thirds lenses and have an enviable budget, the E-M1 II is a compelling choice.

The Olympus PEN-F is an impressively specced camera in a small package that’s well-suited for street photography. Compact enough to fit in a coat pocket, it has the first new sensor we’ve seen from Olympus in years, plus an articulated screen. Its image-stabilization system is rated to let you handhold images at shutter speeds up to five stops slower than without stabilization. Unlike our top picks, though, this model isn’t weather-sealed. In addition, it uses a slower contrast-detect autofocus system that is much less able to track moving subjects than the hybrid systems found in our main picks.

Why you should trust me

I’ve worked as a professional photographer and digital-imaging consultant for almost 15 years. I’m on the faculty of New York City’s International Center of Photography, and I lead photography workshops around the country. I’ve been covering cameras and photo gear for Wirecutter since 2013, getting to shoot with dozens of new cameras as they become available. I also shoot some of the lifestyle photography you see on our site. As a result, I have a keen understanding of current camera technology, as well as of the features and performance that make a real difference when you’re out shooting.

In seeking out the best mirrorless camera I’ve spent more than 70 hours across various versions of this guide poring over manufacturers’ spec sheets, reading reviews from authoritative sources, and of course, doing real-world shooting in and around New York City. For this latest guide I’ve also shot side by side with our top two contenders to see which one deserves your hard-earned cash.

2016: In researching our top mirrorless camera guide, we narrowed down the contenders to the Fujifilm X-T2 and its predecessor the X-T1, which we tested side by side. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Should you upgrade?

When you buy a high-end mirrorless camera, you’re really buying into a system of lenses and accessories. Acquiring lenses can be an addictive (and expensive) habit. And nothing promotes brand loyalty like a preexisting investment in top-quality glass. So, as much as we love our top pick, the Fujifilm X-T2, it makes little sense for photographers who already have a collection of Micro Four Thirds lenses or Sony E-mount lenses to switch formats and start over with Fuji’s APS-C X-mount lens system. The same holds true for DSLR users—if you’re already in the hole for a few thousand dollars to Canon or Nikon, it might not make sense for you to switch over to mirrorless unless you’re willing to invest in all that glass again.

The question of whether to upgrade to the X-T2 is really for owners of entry-level mirrorless cameras who’ve never ventured beyond the kit lens that came with it, or those already using a Fuji X-series camera but feeling hampered by specific shortcomings.

For entry-level mirrorless camera owners ready to take manual control over their camera settings and invest in some outstanding lenses, the X-T2 is a huge upgrade in every respect. In fact, it’s an extremely compelling alternative to a midrange DSLR like the Nikon D7200. With the X-T2 you get the great image quality, handling, core features, and most of the performance benefits of a comparably priced DSLR in a smaller, lighter package.

If you’re upgrading from a compact camera, the Fuji X-T2, with its larger sensor, can blur the background more dramatically, making your portrait subjects stand out. Here the Fuji XF 56mm F1.2 lens was used at an aperture of F2.0. (In-camera JPEG with no edits.) Photo: Amadou Diallo

For existing Fuji shooters, the upgrade situation is a bit more complex. The high-end camera market is so mature that instead of introducing completely new model lines, manufacturers typically offer “Mark II” versions of existing cameras. It usually takes three to four years of incremental feature/performance improvements before upgrading to the newest version makes practical sense for most people. If you own a more beginner-friendly camera like the Fuji X-A1 or A2 and want an EVF, more external controls, or a body better suited to Fuji’s premium (and heavier) lenses, a camera like the X-T2 can be compelling upgrade.

For X100-series owners who want the ability to swap lenses and are willing to embrace an SLR versus rangefinder design aesthetic, the X-T2 offers—among many other benefits—a more capable and higher resolution sensor, faster shooting rates, 4K video, and a more sophisticated autofocus system.

If you’re a Fujifilm X-Pro1 owner seeking better AF performance, faster shooting speed, and niceties such as Wi-Fi and dual SD card slots, its follow-up, the X-Pro2 offers that and more and still maintains the same rangefinder-style shooting experience. It’s an impressive upgrade, but ultimately one we think is a bit too specialized for most folks. You can read more about why we’ve dismissed it in The competition, later in this guide.

The big question is whether current X-T1 owners should consider upgrading to our top pick. The X-T2 offers welcome improvements in several areas. But are those relevant to how you actually shoot? For most X-T1 owners, we think the answer is probably no. And the X-T1 is still a great camera in its own right.

An upgrade does make sense if you have specific needs that aren’t being met to your satisfaction by the X-T1. If you shoot concerts in dark venues and regularly crank up ISO to its maximum to maintain fast shutter speeds, the X-T2 will give you an ISO of 51,2000 in raw mode (versus ISO 6400 on the X-T1) with impressively detailed results. Shoot a bit of sports and action photography and feel the X-T1 doesn’t maintain focus on moving subjects as much as you’d like? The X-T2 offers a more sophisticated and customizable AF system, plus a DSLR-style joystick to quickly move among AF points.

If you want to start shooting video, the X-T2 provides sharper, more detailed footage, the ability to shoot in 4K, and a dual-hinged rear screen for more flexible viewing options. If you regularly make prints of 16 by 20 or larger, the X-T2, with its 24-megapixel sensor gives you 1.5 times more resolution, for potentially sharper prints. If these seem like pretty specific scenarios, they are—that’s the point. For most of us, holding on to the X-T1 makes more sense than upgrading.

How we picked

The great appeal of mirrorless cameras is that they can offer the image quality, handling, and features traditionally found in DSLRs in a smaller, lighter system. These cameras forgo the optical viewfinders found in traditional DSLRs—whose through-the-lens view is made possible by a flip-up mirror—in favor of an electronic viewfinder (EVF) that offers a digital preview of how the image will be recorded by the camera. By eliminating the entire mirror mechanism (and, yes, that’s where the name comes from), a mirrorless camera can be relatively light and compact.

With their relatively small size and adjustable rear screens, mirrorless models like the X-T2 make it easier to shoot without calling attention to you or your camera. (In-camera JPEG with no edits.) Photo: Amadou Diallo

And in the last few years, camera makers have squeezed very large camera sensors into increasingly smaller bodies, bringing great image quality in low light and the option to use shallow depth of field (i.e., blurred backgrounds) as a creative compositional tool. Photographers looking to ease their load and avoid drawing attention to themselves with a big intimidating DSLR can appreciate these advances, knowing that they no longer have to sacrifice image quality for portability.

There’s also a small but passionate community of photographers who take advantage of the fact that with the lens mount placed closer to the sensor (there’s no mirror to take up extra space) they can use adapters to mount legendary manual-focus lenses like those originally built for Leica rangefinders on their mirrorless cameras.

Researching contenders for the best mirrorless camera, I kept my criteria quite simple. I looked for interchangeable-lens cameras that have an EVF rather than an optical viewfinder like you find on traditional DSLRs. And because we already have a mirrorless-camera guide covering more affordably priced options, for this guide I looked exclusively at models in the $1,000-plus range.

We typically avoid recommending full-frame models such as the Sony α7 series. As impressive as they are—squeezing pro-level features and performance into amazingly small cameras—these specialized cameras are designed for a small segment of users with specific needs. We discuss this topic in more detail later in this guide.

Fuji has a strong (and growing) selection of both prime and zoom lenses. Here, the XF 14mm F2.8 lens lets you capture a wide expanse of both sky and foreground. (In-camera JPEG with no edits.) Photo: Amadou Diallo

I also eliminated cameras such as the Nikon 1 V3 with small sensors because they just can’t compete with the larger Micro Four Thirds and APS-C format models in terms of image quality or dynamic range (the ability to render both highlight and shadow detail in a single exposure). Nikon has since put the sensor technology from its 1-series models to much better use in compact cameras such as the DL 18-50 and DL 24-85.

Cameras with very slow AF performance or outdated specs and features that make them ripe for replacement also fell out of consideration. We have much more detail on what we cut and why in The competition, below.

We’ve put in more than 70 hours over several versions of this guide, obsessing over the minutiae of camera spec sheets, reading dozens of reviews, and doing real-world shooting with the top contenders. After all this, the Fujifilm X-T2 is our pick for the best mirrorless camera you can buy.

Using the same highly regarded 24-megapixel sensor seen in Fuji’s X-Pro2, the X-T2 delivers outstanding image quality even at its highest ISO settings. The X-T2 can capture images at up to 8 fps in continuous autofocus mode—faster than most DSLRs—aided by Fuji’s most advanced AF system to date. A new dual-hinged rear screen gives you a wide range of viewing angles when not using the viewfinder, and 4K video along with a mic input make this the first X-series camera with appeal to video shooters. This weather-sealed all-metal camera body performs flawlessly in rough conditions, and the logically arranged dials and buttons make changing camera settings fast and intuitive. Dual SD-card slots give you the choice of either extended shooting capacity or real-time backups. Not to be overlooked is that buying into Fuji’s X-system gives you access to some truly outstanding—though pricey—lenses.

Thank you!

You'll receive a confirmation email soon for Wirecutter Weekly and Deals We Love.

The X-T2 maintains Fuji’s reputation for accurate colors and pleasing contrast in its camera-generated JPEGs. (In-camera JPEG with no edits.) Photo: Amadou Diallo

The X-T2, like its predecessor the X-T1, has arguably the best electronic viewfinder (EVF) of any mirrorless camera, with natural-looking contrast, accurate color, and a larger scene view than even the optical viewfinder on Canon’s $4,500 1D X. The EVF on the X-T2 has been tweaked to offer additional brightness options plus the ability to use an faster screen-refresh rate (both at the cost of battery life). And when it comes to using that viewfinder for manual focus, the X-T2 inherits the ingenious dual split view that lets you achieve precise focus while still viewing your entire composition, a feature we loved in the X-T1.

Pull Quote

We’d have no qualms at all about making prints shot at ISO 51,200.

The X-T2 uses the latest version of Fuji’s X-Trans sensor, which the company developed in house as an alternative to the ubiquitous Bayer pattern chips found on most other cameras. Users and reviewers have long heaped praise on the in-camera JPEG output of X-series cameras, citing color, contrast, and detail that often need little in the way of post-capture editing. In its image quality analysis of the X-Pro2, which uses the same sensor, DPReview notes that, “JPEG color response is excellent,” offering “class-leading high ISO performance,” and finds that in raw mode the sensor “produces files with as much dynamic range as any of its APS-C peers, giving a good degree of processing latitude to adjust the image.”

In shooting a few hundred frames with the X-T2 I found white balance and exposure to be accurate in a range of lighting conditions with consistently pleasing results. The X-T2 delivers great-looking images in any situation you can throw at it. Shooting in JPEG mode the X-T2 continues the Fuji tradition of superior image processing. You get lifelike colors and well-judged contrast, with none of the ham-fisted sharpening or noise suppression artifacts that, on other cameras, make shooting JPEGs a huge trade-off between quality and convenience. Impressively, the X-T2 actually takes Fuji’s image processing to higher level. We were surprised at just how clean and detailed images were when shooting outdoors well past nightfall.

The X-T2’s low-light performance is great for anyone who shoots at night or in clubs and concert halls. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Compared with the X-T1, you’re getting one stop greater sensitivity with no loss in image quality.

Offering top settings of ISO 25,600 and 51,200 (with the latter you can shoot in a room at night with the lights off) is one thing. Having them deliver pleasant-looking images is a much harder feat, but one that the X-T2 pulls off. Typically, a camera’s highest ISO setting is best left for emergencies. But we’d have no qualms at all about making prints shot at ISO 51,200 after some minimal editing to reduce the appearance of image noise. DPReview’s image quality comparison tool shows the X-T2 to have noticeably finer details and less obtrusive noise suppression artifacts at its default JPEG settings than the X-T1, the Sony α6300, or the Olympus E-M1.

In this nighttime indoor scene the room was lit by a single lamp above the bookshelf. The X-T1 and X-T2 were shot at identical exposure values at ISO 25,600. In the 100 percent crops you can see the X-T2 (left) not only exhibits greater detail than the X-T1 (right) but fewer false colors. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Our own tests bore this out. I shot at night with the X-T2 and X-T1 side by side, using the same lens. At ISO 25,600, JPEGs from the X-T2 show greater detail (due to its higher resolution sensor) but fewer false colors and smears over neutral-colored objects. At its highest sensitivity, ISO 51,200, JPEGs from the X-T2 look nearly indistinguishable from X-T1 JPEGs at ISO 25,600. So compared with the X-T1, you’re getting one stop greater sensitivity with no loss in image quality. That’s about as close as you’ll get to a free lunch in the camera world. And it gets better. Though the X-T1 is limited to JPEG-only mode at ISO 12,800 and higher, the X-T2 can capture images in raw mode at every ISO. If you shoot in dark clubs or concert venues, we’d be hard-pressed to name an APS-C camera that will give you better-looking results right out of the box than the X-T2.

In this comparison, the X-T2 at ISO 51,200 (left) essentially matches the image quality of the X-T1 at ISO 25,600 (right), providing an extra stop of light-gathering ability with no penalty in either noise or image-suppression artifacts. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Fuji’s revamped AF system means the X-T2 focuses faster and more reliably than its predecessor. This is a welcome improvement but be aware that AF performance is very lens-dependent. Fuji’s wide-aperture prime lenses like the XF 56mm F1.2R lens use big, heavy glass elements that take longer to move into focus. To take full advantage of the X-T2’s focusing speed you’ll want to use lenses like our top Fuji zoom pick, the XF 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR and kit zoom XF 18-55mm F2.8-4.0 R LM OIS, which use linear motors (look for the LM designation in the lens name) for faster response. The X-T2 boasts an impressive 8 fps shooting rate, even with focus tracking enabled. And a small joystick, positioned for easy thumb access lets you move quickly among the camera’s 325 AF points.

The quality of electronic viewfinders (EVFs) can vary greatly even among among high-end camera models. The X-T2 uses the great performing high-resolution OLED EVF of its predecessor, adding a faster refresh rate for an even more natural, analog-feeling view when keeping up with fast-moving subjects. As a longtime DSLR shooter myself, I long held EVFs with contempt; they felt like looking at the world on a tiny TV screen. I could happily use the EVF on the X-T2, however, and never think twice about an optical viewfinder again. It’s that good. Another useful feature of Fuji’s EVF is that when you hold the camera in portrait orientation, the onscreen image info rotates as well (like on a smartphone) so you can easily read camera and exposure settings.

For manual-focus shooters, the X-T2, like its predecessor, offers what I consider the best focusing aid I’ve ever seen on any camera. In addition to the focus peaking (where a colored overlay uses edge contrast to indicate sharpness) and simple magnified views that most cameras offer to eyeball focus, Fuji uses is a clever dual split view manual focus aid. When enabled, the EVF displays a secondary magnified view of the center portion of the scene alongside the main viewfinder image. The neat trick here is that the magnified view mimics the traditional split focus prism found on rangefinder cameras. When the image area is out of focus, there’s a horizontal offset that adjusts in real time as you rotate the lens’ focus ring. When the top and bottom half of this magnified view are perfectly aligned (as in the example below), the image is in focus. It’s intuitive, fast, unfailingly accurate, and works well even in lower-light scenes.

You can see this in action in a Fujifilm promotional video for the X-T1. As with traditional rangefinder prisms, this digital split view is locked to the center of the frame, so for off-center subjects you will have to recompose after focusing.

The X-T2 is a vastly more capable video camera than the X-T1. It is the first Fuji camera to shoot 4K video and includes other videocentric features such as a 3.5mm microphone jack and, with the optional $330 battery grip, a headphone socket to monitor your audio. Video specialists can record to an external HDMI recorder and specify a flat F-Log gamma profile for footage that allows for more color and exposure correction in video editing software. Evaluating 4K video, Sebastian Wöber, writing for Cinema5D finds “the Fujifilm X-T2 blows away most other cameras we have tested. The image of the X-T2 is very homogenous, clean and has a high resolution that dissolves lots of detail with a nice filmic grain.” DPReview, though less effusive, still found the X-T2 to be “competitive against most of the 4K-capable cameras we’ve tested … though a fraction behind those, like the Sony a6300, that derive their 4K from significantly oversampled footage.”

When buying any interchangeable-lens camera, it’s important to take a look at the company’s lens offerings. Though Fuji has only been producing X-series-compatible lenses since 2012, the camera maker has filled out its lens lineup at a furious clip. As I write this, there are 23 lenses from Fuji and 24 more compatible optics (most of them manual-focus only) from lens makers like Zeiss and Samyang. And Fuji regularly publishes “road maps” outlining lenses it plans to release within the next 12 to 18 months. Even more impressive than the pace of Fuji’s lens rollout is the outstanding quality of the lenses it’s produced.

Fuji’s lenses aren’t cheap—most go for $600 to $1,000—but reviewers agree that you are indeed getting what you pay for. And though those prices are obviously too steep for casual users of entry-level mirrorless cameras, once you step up to the high-end camera systems aimed at enthusiasts and professionals, it’s not uncommon for top-quality lenses to cost nearly as much as (or even more than) the camera itself.

The X-T2, like nearly all cameras these days, has built-in Wi-Fi and an accompanying app (available for iOS and Android). After downloading the free Fujifilm Camera Remote app you can send JPEGs (but not raw RAF files) from the camera to your phone or tablet. In addition, you can control camera operation from your mobile device. Tap the live-view image on your phone and you can set focus. Aperture, shutter speed, ISO, white balance, exposure compensation, and the self-timer are among the camera settings you can change remotely. In addition, you can use your phone to transfer location data to the camera so that subsequent images (both RAF and JPEG) are tagged with GPS data.

Fuji’s Camera Remote app puts a live view of the scene (left) on your phone where you can fire the camera’s shutter as well as adjust exposure settings. You can also browse JPEG images (right) recorded to the SD card and transfer them to your phone.

Pull Quote

Fuji stands apart from all of its competitors with a track record of making continued improvements to existing camera models.

Fuji has weather-sealed the X-T2 in 63 locations to make it resistant to water and dust. The company says the camera is designed to function in temperatures as low as 14 °F/-10 °C. Fall weather here in New York City couldn’t pose much of a threat other than a gentle rain shower so I wasn’t able to test the weather-sealing and cold rating. Dave Pardue of Imaging Resource, however, took the X-T2 out shooting along the beach during a tropical storm on the South Carolina coast. Wading knee-deep in water with strong winds blowing water and sand, Pardue reported, “This X-T2 rig proved a beast, shrugging off the worst of [the storm] and continuing to fire with unabated reliability.” If you’re looking to take the X-T2 out in similar conditions you’ll want to use one of the eight (and counting) weather-sealed lenses Fuji has launched since 2014. Look for the “WR” designation in the official lens name.

Fuji stands apart from all of its competitors with a track record of making continued improvements to existing camera models. Ever since the launch of the X100, the company has shown an impressive commitment to its customers by releasing ongoing firmware updates to its cameras, even models that were replaced. These updates don’t just fix bugs. Often they add new functionality or improved performance. Our previous pick, the X-T1 has received three major firmware updates since it was released in 2014. Additions have included a faster shutter speed, improved AF support for some lenses, plus manual exposure control and additional frame rates when recording video. Based on this history there’s a good chance that over the course of your X-T2 ownership, you’re likely to end up with a more capable camera than the one you bought.

The X-T2 has two SD-card slots. You can opt to have the camera automatically switch to the second card when the first one becomes full or have one card serve as a real-time backup. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Who else likes our pick

At the time of this writing, reviews are still trickling in for the X-T2. The ones we’ve seen so far, however, offer kudos to Fuji for making significant upgrades yet keeping what worked so well in the X-T1.

DPReview gave the X-T2 its gold award, noting gains in autofocus performance that, “puts it broadly on par with the likes of the Sony a6300 and Canon’s 80D,” though they add that AF speed drops noticeably in low-light situations, with the camera falling back on its slower contrast-detect autofocus mechanism.

Michael Topham of Amateur Photographer was highly impressed with the X-T2’s AF performance, particularly when taking advantage of the faster shooting speed the optional battery grip provides. Taking it out to shoot an auto race he writes, “My main concern was whether the autofocus could keep up with cars approaching the camera at speeds of approximately 100 mph … Out of 19 frames in a burst at 11fps, no more than 3-4 turned out to be unsharp and unusable. The giant leap the X-T2 makes from the X-T1 in terms of its autofocus speed is a real eye opener … it feels like a match for its DSLR competition.”

Phil Hall, writing for Tech Radar was equally impressed with Fuji’s strides in AF speed and accuracy, finding, “AF performance is a huge leap forward. Whereas in the past we’d have hesitated to pick up an X-series camera with the express intention of shooting action, we’d have no concerns now thanks to the very grown-up and capable AF system in the X-T2.”

Mark Goldstein of Photography Blog raves about results from the 24-megapixel sensor and X-Processor Pro engine, writing “… [image] noise is noticeable only by its almost complete absence throughout the ISO range of 100-51,200, the JPEG quality is so good that you could conceivably never need the Raw files.” Overall, he notes, “Fujifilm have studiously addressed most of our criticisms of the original X-T1 … tweaks and enhancements to the operation of the X-T2 make it (for us at least) the most pleasurable Fujifilm camera to handle.”

The addition of a joystick (between the Q and Menu buttons) lets you move more quickly among available AF points. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Flaws but not dealbreakers

The X-T2’s rear screen is not touch-sensitive. Though you can argue that the wealth of external controls minimizes the need for one, using a touchscreen to switch focus among different areas of the frame is much faster than any analog method. And this is a feature that is now commonplace on mirrorless cameras from Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus.

The camera’s two highest sensitivity values, ISO 25,600 and ISO 51,200, are “extended” settings, meaning you have to enable their availability in the menu system. Frustratingly, you can make only one of them available at a time. You designate which one will correspond to the single “Hi” setting on the camera’s ISO dial. This leads to a confusing scenario where turning the dial lets you go from ISO 12,800 to 51,200 but not from ISO 12,800 to 25,600 without first making a trip to the camera menu.

Fuji has buried the X-T2’s card-formatting option as either a submenu under User Setting—requiring several button presses to reach it from most menu locations—or a slightly arcane button press combination (hold the Trash button for three seconds, then click the rear command dial). Formatting the SD is easily the most common menu task you perform, so we’d at least like to see a user option to add it to the shortcut “Q” menu or custom My Menu for faster access.

The Fujifilm X-T1 was our top recommendation in a previous version of this guide. Our current pick bests it with a more advanced autofocus system, a higher-resolution sensor that delivers more detailed images in very low light, an additional SD card slot, and 4K video. But if these features aren’t relevant to your style of photography, the X-T1 remains a formidable camera in its own right. Its image quality is still among the best of any APS-C mirrorless camera, the all-metal body can stand up to daily abuse, and paired with one of Fuji’s growing body of weather-sealed lenses, you can take the X-T1 out shooting in any type of weather. The price of the X-T1 fluctuates from only marginally less than the X-T2 to around a $500 difference—and at the biggest gap the X-T1 saves you enough cash to add an extra lens to your kit.

The X-T1 delivers outstanding images. Though shooting in raw mode will always give you the most options for tweaking your images on the computer, the X-T1 continues Fuji’s tradition of offering some of the most pleasing color and contrast you’ll find from a camera-processed JPEG. In giving the X-T1 a Gold award, DPReview cited its stellar image quality, writing, “The X-Trans CMOS sensor and Fujifilm’s in-camera processing combine to give really good-looking out-of-camera JPEGs … The camera’s DR modes also help you make the most of the sensor’s impressive dynamic range.” In shooting nearly 7,000 images with the X-T1 between 2014 and 2016 I also found its image quality to be very impressive. White balance and exposure were accurate in a range of lighting conditions. And up through ISO 3200, color noise is barely noticeable.

On paper, the X-T1 can shoot at an impressive 8 fps while tracking focus on your subject. In practice, however, you won’t come away with every single shot in tack-sharp focus when shooting fast-moving subjects, and the burst rate slows as the camera readjusts focus. So you wouldn’t take the X-T1 to shoot a Super Bowl assignment, but for more casual use with subjects such as runners, cyclists, or automobiles moving toward the camera at a consistent speed, I found that the X-T1 returned usable results with a reasonable number of misses.

Though its AF performance isn’t as good as that of our top pick, the X-T1 is still fast enough to catch spontaneous moments in sharp focus. Photo: Amadou Diallo

If you’re at all interested in shooting video, you’re much better off looking at our top pick, and if you’re really serious, look at the Panasonic Lumix GH4. The X-T1’s video output lacks detail and has prominent image artifacts. Also missing from the X-T1 are the manual controls, accessory ports (like mic and headphone inputs), and recording-quality options that have become increasingly commonplace on competing models.

Though the X-T1 is in some ways a less capable camera than the X-T2, the two models still share much of the same DNA. The X-T1 is ruggedly built, weather-sealed, has an outstanding viewfinder, and puts key shooting controls within easy reach for on-the-fly adjustments. And the classic retro styling is as functional as it is pleasing to look at. And though its AF performance isn’t as good as that of our top pick, it’s still more than serviceable for situations like weddings, school performances, toddler pics, and Little League games. And because it’s an older model, the X-T1, as of this writing, costs several hundred dollars less than our top pick. If you don’t need the extra features of our top pick, you can use that savings to pick up an extra lens instead.

For Micro Four Thirds owners

Also great

If you’re already invested in Micro Four Thirds lenses, the E-M1 II is the most capable model you can buy. You’ll pay a premium, however, and settle for lower image quality than larger sensor cameras deliver.

If you’ve already invested in several Micro Four Thirds lenses and are willing to spend more, the Olympus E-M1 II is easily the most capable Micro Four Thirds camera we’ve seen. Its sensor is physically smaller (by almost 50 percent) than the one found in the Fuji X-T1 and X-T2, so you won’t get as much detail in low-light shots and you’ll have to settle for less dramatic background blur. But the E-M1 II is a powerhouse, offering shooting speeds and image stabilization beyond even pro-grade DSLRs.

Pull Quote

the Olympus E-M1 II is easily the most capable Micro Four Thirds camera we’ve seen.

The E-M1 II acquires focus faster than any of its rivals and can shoot at 60 fps (that’s equivalent to individual frames in an HD video) in Raw mode, no less. Even with continuous autofocus enabled the camera is capable of 18 fps. By comparison, those Canon and Nikon DSLRs you see on the sidelines of pro sports events “only” shoot between 12 and 14 fps. The E-M1 II features Olympus’s latest iteration of its well-regarded image stabilization system that, depending on the lens used, is allowing photographers like Robin Wong to handhold images at up to five seconds with extremely impressive results.

The E-M1 II body (left) is no more compact than our runner-up pick (right). Its smaller Micro Four Thirds sensor, however, does allow for a much more compact lens design. Both cameras are shown here with a fixed focal length portrait lens. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Like the Fuji X-T2, the E-M1 II features a rugged weather-sealed build that can stand up to the elements. It can shoot 4K video, has a fully articulating rear screen that’s touch-sensitive (a feature our top pick lacks) and, due to a beefier battery is rated at 440 shots per charge (100 more than our top pick).

The most obvious drawback to the Olympus is its high price. The launch price of the E-M1 II in a body-only configuration is more expensive than our top pick bundled with an extremely good kit lens. At this point, we really see the E-M1 II as a practical choice only if you’re already invested in Micro Four Thirds lenses. And even then, we suggest waiting a few months for the price to come down a bit, if you can.

Another factor preventing the E-M1 II from taking our top spot has to do with sensor size. Its Micro Four Thirds sensor offers 20MP of resolution, but is almost half the physical size of the larger APS-C sensor found in the X-T2. Because of its sensor size advantage, the Fuji delivers noticeably cleaner, more detailed images at high ISO settings, as you can see in DPReview’s image comparison tool. The E-M1 II’s smaller sensor also limits it to less background blur than the X-T2 at equivalent distances and aperture settings.

Micro Four Thirds users have long accepted these trade-offs in exchange for a more portable camera system. Yet the E-M1 II is actually slightly taller and heavier than the X-T2. To be fair, Micro Four Thirds lenses are significantly smaller than their APS-C counterparts, so it’ll still take up less room in your camera bag. But in many cases the size and weight savings over an APS-C camera may not be that significant.

The E-M1 II has 12 user-customizable dials and buttons with more than 30 individual functions that can be assigned to any one of them. Photo: Amadou Diallo

Olympus has long offered a higher degree of customization (and complexity) in its camera operation than any of its rivals. And with its flagship E-M1 II, Olympus takes this to almost comical heights. Twelve customizable buttons and dials? Check. A choice of 30 separate functions to assign to them? Check. The rear Function lever can be used to reassign the camera’s dials on-the-fly to completely different operations. The lever itself can be configured as an additional power on-off switch. You get the idea. Though this approach allows you to tweak camera behavior to suit any need, no matter how esoteric, it does make for a very complex menu system (the utility menu alone is a whopping 20 screen pages). Suffice it to say that before taking the E-M1 II out to shoot, you’ll want to spend some quality time with the user manual. And if you go long stretches between using the camera, keep that manual handy. You’ll need it.

The Olympus PEN-F offers a lot of features in a compact package. For starters, it boasts a new 20-megapixel sensor, the highest-resolution chip to date for a Micro Four Thirds camera. It has a touch-sensitive rear screen that rotates 180 degrees for comfortable viewing whether you’re holding the camera above your head or below your waist. The well-designed layout of external dials, buttons, and switches means you can easily change settings without pulling the camera away from your face. And like our main picks, it has a high-resolution OLED viewfinder, albeit one with a noticeably smaller image magnification.

DPReview’s image-quality tests show a measurable, if fairly subtle, increase in image detail for the PEN-F’s sensor in comparison with the previous-generation 16-megapixel sensors found in older Micro Four Thirds cameras like the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II. With no increase in image noise accompanying the corresponding resolution bump, the updated sensor has no downside. Similar to Olympus’s E-M5 and E-M1-series cameras, the PEN-F offers the option for an ultrahigh-resolution multishot mode; it’s designed to work with static subjects, and you’ll have to use a tripod, but the sensor-shift technology produces a 50-megapixel file.

But though its all-metal exterior is rugged enough to survive real-world dings and bumps, this camera is not weather-sealed like our top picks, a notable disadvantage for anyone who likes to shoot in the great outdoors or even at the beach. Another knock is that this model uses a contrast-detect autofocus system. Though unfailingly accurate when shooting in single-shot mode, this technology has been largely replaced in top-tier cameras (such as our main picks) by a hybrid contrast/phase detect system that allows for superior tracking of moving subjects, a must-have for action-oriented photographers who shoot sports and wildlife.

The PEN-F is not available with any kind of kit-lens bundle, and as of this writing it’s still selling for its list price, making it a more expensive option than either of our top picks with an equivalent lens. The PEN-F is perhaps the most compact camera with such a high-end feature set and is clearly aimed at people who like to shoot documentary and street photography without drawing undue attention to their gear. If that fits your shooting style, the PEN-F is a compelling choice that may be worth the price premium. For more general-purpose photography, however, we think our main picks offer most folks greater versatility.

A pick for video specialists

Also great

The Panasonic Lumix GH4 shoots video well above its price with 4K out of the box, as well as 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI output, a 200 Mbps bitrate, ¼-speed slow motion, and built-in time code. If we’re speaking your language, this is the camera for you.

One camera that deserves special mention, even though I ultimately can’t recommend it for stills-oriented photographers, is the Panasonic Lumix GH4. Launched in February, the GH4 has shaken up the industry by offering 4K video right out of the box, something previously found only on cameras costing upwards of $6,000. If specs like 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI output, a 200 Mbps bitrate, ¼-speed slow motion, and built-in time code sync speak to you, this is a groundbreaking achievement.

What’s so intriguing for the rest of us is that if you put the video specs aside, you’ve got a very capable stills camera with a 16-megapixel Micro Four Thirds sensor, weather-sealed body, fast AF, a fully articulated rear LCD, and a battery life that’s 1.5 times greater than that of our top pick, the X-T2. And with video resolution as high as 4096×2160 pixels (at 24 fps), you can pull high-quality 8-megapixel still images from your video footage. Andrew Reid of EOSHD sizes up the camera’s positioning nicely, saying, “The GH4 is actually a professional camera. It just so happens to be priced like a mirrorless stills camera.” Photography Blog puts it even more directly: “If you need one camera to shoot both stills and video, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 is … by far your best choice.”

But there’s no getting around the fact that for stills shooters, the advantages the GH4 has over our top pick, the Fujifilm X-T2, are limited to a slightly more adjustable rear screen, more powerful built-in flash, and a larger-capacity battery. The first two are hardly deal-clinchers and picking up a spare battery for the X-T2 will set you back less than $70.

Ultimately, the benefits don’t justify recommending this model over our top pick, especially when you consider that the APS-C sensor of the X-T2 has the same image-quality benefits over the GH4 as it does over our alternate pick, the E-M1 II.

Panasonic announced an updated version of the GH4. Released as both a firmware update for existing users and as the new DMC-GH4R, the tweaked version will feature a V-Log L recording profile, which will allow it to record video for more than 30 minutes at a time; it will also support a wider dynamic range, although all footage shot in this mode will require post-processing. (The 30-minute limit exists to prevent the GH4 from being taxed as a video recorder instead of a still camera.) Panasonic has taken the unusual step of asking $100 for this firmware update, whereas firmware updates have traditionally been free. The charge reflects the fact that this is very much a pro-level tweak, and you will need to know what you’re doing with post-processing to get good footage out of it. But this update brings a feature set that pro users have been wanting for a very long time. Another firmware update, announced in March 2016, provides support for Post Focus, 4K photo mode, and burst shooting with flash.

The competition

In recent years, camera makers have been going all out to appeal to photographers who want DSLR image quality and great lenses but don’t want to lug around a heavy camera. The result? An ever-growing selection of mirrorless cameras with pro features (like large sensors, weather sealing, and high-quality viewfinders) that are smaller and lighter than their DSLR rivals.

Sony’s α6500 has essentially the same 24-megapixel sensor as its predecessor, the α6300, but offers a number of improvements. With the α6500 you get a five-axis in-body stabilization system that will work with any lens mounted on the camera, a touchscreen that makes adjusting the focus point far quicker and easier, and a larger buffer that allows you to shoot a burst of up to 300 JPEG or 100 raw images at 11 fps. The camera menu has also been redesigned for more efficient navigation.

Our biggest reservation about the Sony has less to do with the camera, which is very good, than with lens selection for Sony’s APS-C cameras. Sony hasn’t released a native E-mount lens since 2013, and has just 17 to choose from. Yes, Sony’s FE-mount lenses are compatible with the α6500, but those optics are designed for full-frame cameras, and thus physically larger than their APS-C E-mount equivalents. There are third-party lens makers like Sigma and Zeiss and that make E-mount lenses. But we feel that for most users ready to drop more than a thousand bucks into a camera system, a robust, expanding list of native-mount lenses—common to all of our picks—makes for a more ideal long-term value proposition.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 was the runner-up pick in an earlier version of this guide. Like our top pick, the E-M1 features a weather-sealed body with a wealth of external shooting controls. It also offers a touchscreen and image stabilization that’s built into the camera itself, thus available with every lens you use. With its smaller Micro Four Thirds imaging sensor, however, the E-M1 can’t quite compete with the Fuji X-T1 for low noise and image detail at higher ISO settings and falls significantly behind our top pick in this regard. Its smaller sensor also can’t produce as much background blur at wide apertures. Its follow-up, the E-M1 Mark II is a significant upgrade in almost every way. In fact, the only reason to consider the original E-M1 is the very substantial price savings it offers. As of this writing it costs less than half the price of the Mark II for a body-only configuration. However, we’d recommend waiting a few months for the just-released Mark II to come down in price, lessening the financial blow.

Fujifilm has released the long-awaited X-Pro2, its follow-up to the very popular X-Pro1. Though it fixes the video shortfalls of its predecessor, its price and its specialist features keep it from being a pick. With a 24-megapixel sensor, a 273-point AF system, and a revamped imaging processor, Fuji’s flagship X-Pro2 matches our top pick, the X-T2, in resolution, inclusion of dual SD-card slots, and a joystick for moving quickly among AF points. The hybrid viewfinder lets you choose between an optical scene view and an electronic one.

With the X-Pro2, Fujifilm has taken a big step in addressing the poor video performance its previous cameras have been rightly criticized for. The X-Pro2 captures Full HD video at a 36-Mbps bit rate, for cleaner and more detailed results than what previous Fuji models offered. It still won’t challenge a video-oriented camera like the Panasonic GH4, which shoots 4K video, but it is a noticeable upgrade for Fuji users who want to grab the occasional video.

Two things keep the X-Pro2 from supplanting our top pick. The first is price: Because it ships without a lens, adding even a mid-priced prime lens will leave your wallet a few hundred dollars lighter than the X-T2 kit lens bundle. Just as important, though, the X-Pro2 is a very specialized tool. As with traditional rangefinder cameras, the precision of your framing can vary from lens to lens. Furthermore, using the optical viewfinder with telephoto lenses leads to a very small view in the finder. In the film days, rangefinder cameras were favorites of documentary and street photographers but much less suited for people shooting wildlife or sports. The same idea holds true with a digital incarnation such as the X-Pro2. If this camera happens to fit your shooting style, you’ll love it. But there’s no escaping the fact that it’s less versatile than a more general-purpose camera like our top pick, the X-T2.

Sony has turned heads in the camera industry with mirrorless cameras housing full-frame sensors, a spec usually available only on much larger, heavier DSLRs. The Sony α7– and α7R-series cameras feature full-frame sensors with resolutions between 24 megapixels and 42 megapixels. The α7S has a full-frame sensor that allows video shooters to capture 4K footage in unbelievably low-light scenes. These are groundbreaking cameras, as they put pro-level DSLR resolution in a mirrorless-sized package. And Sony has begun steadily adding full-frame lenses designed for these camera mounts to its lineup, addressing a long-standing criticism: The company now has 14 FE-mount lenses, including a 24–70mm zoom and a 70–200mm zoom with fixed f/2.8 apertures, meeting the requirements of the most demanding shooters.

Although lenses like that go a long way toward making the A7 a viable camera system for pro photographers, we typically avoid recommending full-frame cameras. These are highly specialized (and very expensive) tools, each with distinct advantages and drawbacks that you need to weigh against your individual needs. Frankly, if you need a full-frame camera like these, you already know that, and you won’t be coming to us for advice on which one to buy.

The name Leica can send shivers of desire up the spines of photographers, but the Leica T (Typ 701) with a single lens and EVF (sold separately) will set you back more than $4,000. That’s simply too much of a brand premium to pay for a camera whose specs can be matched or exceeded by camera systems costing thousands of dollars less.

We feel the same way about the Leica Q, announced in June 2015. At a price north of $4,000, we do not recommend paying up for this Leica model either.

The $3,200 Leica TL, an update to the T line that offers an improved autofocus system, was announced in November 2016. With the same sensor size and general design as its predecessor, the TL is another model that costs too much for its specs.

Though the Nikon 1 V3 offers very impressive 20 fps shooting with continuous AF, we’ve never understood Nikon’s rationale for using such a small, 1-inch sensor in this class of camera. It just cannot compete with APS-C or even Micro Four Thirds sensors in low-light performance or dynamic range. DPReview found the camera disappointing, concluding: “Considering the V3’s price tag … enthusiasts looking for an all-purpose tool should look at the alternatives since there are many other cheaper cameras with good handling, less low ISO noise (and larger sensor), and broader lens selection.” Nikon has recently put this sensor technology to much better use, to our minds, in its new series of high-end compact cameras, which includes the DL 18-50 and DL 24-85.

Samsung’s NX1 is a powerful and feature-laden camera aimed squarely at the pro market. It can shoot at 15 fps with continuous autofocus, it has a 28-megapixel APS-C sensor, and it captures 4K video. Add to that a 2.36-million-dot EVF and a weather-sealed magnesium-alloy body. Last year, however, rumors were rampant that Samsung was shutting down its camera division. Since then the company has officially announced that it is ending camera sales in the UK. Samsung USA will not comment on its plans, but when we recently reached out to the company’s PR rep to ask for an NX1 to review, we learned that no press units were available, with no indication that any would be so in the future. This experience, coupled with the fact that Samsung has not even released a camera since the NX500 in February 2015, leads us to imagine a bleak future for Samsung shooters, and we won’t be recommending the company’s camera systems.

The Panasonic DMC-FZ2500 is essentially a GH4 with a fixed lens and a smaller sensor. Using a 1-inch sensor and a 20x zoom lens, it offers nearly all of the 4K video specs of the GH4, including 100 Mbps bit rates with a choice of compression options, timecode support, and 4:2:2 10-bit HDMI output. A built-in ND filter (to allow wider apertures in sunny conditions), an articulated rear screen, an OLED viewfinder, and the presence of both mic and headphone sockets are all features geared toward serious video shooters. With a launch price of $1,200, the FZ2500 is a cheaper 4K option than the GH4, which comes without a lens. It’s a notably bulky package, however, with a zoom lens that remains at full extension throughout its entire zoom range. We think that anyone looking to shoot video exclusively will prefer the flexibility of choosing smaller, faster lenses, and will be willing to pay for the privilege.

In March 2017, Panasonic released the Lumix GH5, a substantial update to our current pick for video shooters that includes a number of enhancements for still-photography shooters as well. Sporting a larger, 20-megapixel sensor, the GH5 has a higher-resolution OLED viewfinder, a five-axis image-stabilization system that uses both sensor- and lens-based stabilization simultaneously, a larger image buffer for longer image bursts, dual SD card slots, and a more advanced AF system. However, it costs twice as much as the GH4, so we’ll continue to recommend that older model as long as it’s still available.

What to look forward to

Fujifilm has announced its X-E3 mirrorless camera, a replacement for the X-E2. Like our top pick, the Fujifilm X-T2, the X-E3 has an X Processor Pro image processing engine, as well as the same 24-megapixel CMOS III sensor. However, compared with the X-T2’s 325, the X-E3 will operate with a 91-point hybrid autofocus system. Fujifilm is sticking with a minimalistic body design and notes that the X-E3 has the same compact, lightweight build as the X-E2. In addition to the ability to shoot 4K video, the camera’s 3-inch touch screen features a new “Touch Function” that will give owners the ability to zoom by using pinching and flicking motions. The X-E3 will be available at the end of September and is priced at $900. Paired with its XF 18–55mm or XF23mm lens, the X-E3 will be priced at $1,300 and $1,150, respectively.

Olympus has announced the release of its Olympus OM-D E-M10 III camera. A follow-up to the Olympus OM-D E-M10 II, it has a new interface and an updated handgrip. Though it uses the same TruePic VIII image processor as the Olympus E-M10 II, the Olympus E-M10 III has an upgraded advanced Auto mode that is supposed to better capture subjects that are moving, and those that are in dark areas. This model’s five-axis image stabilization and 121-point contrast autofocus help to prevent blurry snapshots. The 16-megapixel camera also features a live view preview and built-in Wi-Fi, which enables users to instantly import and share photos to a smartphone. The OM-D E-M10 III will also be available at the end of September; its body-only version will cost $650, and the addition of its 14–42mm EZ lens will raise its price to $800.

I’m still baffled that the NEX-7 gets so much attention while the Sony SLT-A77 is ignored. You get the sensor and OLED EVF from the NEX-7 but with the advantages of a weather-sealed body, a mic jack, dual control dials, and best of all, Minolta A-mount lenses, which means you’re not limited to the handful of E-mount lenses (or an awkward & expensive adapter) on the NEX-7.

Yes, the A77 is physically larger than the NEX-7, but with any mirrorless SLR, most of the size of your gear bag is going to be due to lenses and not camera body anyway.
Give me the choice between the A77 and the NEX-7, and I’ll take the A77 in a heartbeat.

Anonymous

Best thing about the OM-D is that you can get a fast normal prime (AKA a classy fuzzy backgrounds lens that looks about like a normal person’s field of view and is sharp in the darkest corner of the dive bar) for under $300. The panasonic 20mmf1.7 on the OM-D will produce pictures qualitatively as good as the Canon 5dMkII at half the cost and a third the size.

The only downside is that once you have an ILC body you enter the terrible financial death spiral of lusting after ever more expensive lenses, but I guess that’s what the billfold is for.

Peter Broido

Wrong. Pros and art photographers still use large format cameras because the bigger the sensor, in this case film for them, and for digital users, the bigger the sensor the more information you can capture and the better the picture. All other things being equal a larger sensor is better than a small one. The Sony NEX 7 has a much larger sensor than a 4/3 camera. I agree that the number of lenses is limited; however, there are any number of lens adapters for the Sony which will allow the use of many different brand lens in a manual mode and my guess is if you are using a prime lens such as the Sony Zeiss one you are not walking around taking casual snapshots.

gyamashita

“all other things being equal” being the operative phrase. unfortunately, other things fail to be equal in most cases, so one must choose between the features that are important to him/her. trade-offs ensue, so between IQ, size, cost, etc., one has to make a calculated decision.

i decided to go m4/3 after being a happy nikon guy for years. why? size. i rarely carried my nikon dslr with me b/c it was simply too big. but an omd w/20mm or 17mm 1.8 is quite svelte.

and with the em1 coming out in a few weeks with the rumored 12-40mm 2.8, it just broadens the m4/3 landscape even further. is the IQ of a FF or even an aps-C sensor going to be better, “all other things being equal?” yes. for the most part. but i’m happy with 90% of the IQ with a camera that i have with me 100% of the time.

foosion

I don’t see many pros using 8″x10″ view cameras or even medium format.

A larger sensor will capture more light, which is helpful in very low light situations, as too little light will result in more noise, but is essentially irrelevant in normal light. Other important sensor characteristics, such as dynamic range and resolution, are independent of sensor size.

A larger sensor will result in shallower depth of field for a given f-stop. Not very relevant unless you need paper thin DOF.

I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a print of a real picture taken with a NEX 7 and an E-M5.

Jonathan Marcus

Based on this and other reviews incl. dpreview.com, I got the EM-5 with the Lumix 20mm/1.7 pancake, and I am nothing but pleased. It’s a magnificent device that produces impressive pictures. I shot a wedding (as a guest) entirely at 6400 ISO with no flash. The noise was negligible, the tones rich and smooth. I love the customizability, the performance, and the build quality. I’m not a pro, but I care, and this camera makes me feel good about my photography.

Matt Kendall

The Fuji X-Pro-1 now has 4 lenses, not 3 (18-55 f2.8-f4 zoom) and the focusing is much improved in firmware v2, so much for updating on the competition 🙂

And I totally managed to miss the Firmware update when that came out. Will update the piece accordingly.

Lisa Paik

Hi! I have a question for you: Now that the Olympus OM-D EM-5 body-only is under $1000 (Amazon.com $999), would you consider it the best mirrorless camera under $1000? Or, would you still recommend the Sony Nex 6 over the Olympus OM-D Em-5?

Anonymous

Hi Lisa,

When we talk about the price of the camera, we tend to talk about it as a bundle with lens if nothing else for internal consistency. It’s really nice to see the OM-D dropping in price a little, but even with the most affordable lens bundle, it’s still just a hair above that threshold at $1099. But if it drops below the $1000 mark, we’re going to have to take a long and serious look at it as the best under $1000 as well.

Tim

Matty Thomas

Which lens would you recommend getting with this camera? One of the kit lenses(12-50 or 14-42?) or to just get the body and pick up one of the lenses recommended in your lens piece? This coming from someone who has never owned an interchangeable lens camera.

Thanks!

Anonymous

Hi Matty,

I’d say go with one of the kit lenses. While there’s not a lot of optical difference between the pair, the 12-50 is weather sealed, is two mm wider at the wide end (which makes a fair bit of difference), and has higher quality construction. So it’ll probably last a bit better/longer, if you don’t mind the extra size or weight.
Here’s a good discussion about the pairhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50804441

I know this isn’t something you can really answer, but do you think the GX7 is worth waiting for? Any thoughts if I’m not in a hurry?

Anonymous

We’re having an editorial discussion about this as we speak — and we’re about to put a “Wait” notification on the OM-D. Before Christmas, we’re pretty sure *something* is going to beat the OM-D, the question is just what. I have some pretty high hopes for the GX-7 — I really like the form factor, the fact that it has a viewfinder, and the image stabilization. But we have to see if Panasonic has upped its sensor game (where Olympus tends to beat it), and how well that stabilization system works!

zack

Got it. Thanks for the reply. I can’t wait till Christmas, but I guess I can wait till sept sometime…

aiosdfj

At these prices & weight, you might as well get a full frame DSLR for couple hundred dollars more and 0.5 pounds more. It will focus faster and take amazing photos.

Rblnr

It’s a great camera to use, a better shooting experience particularly of you’re a pro than any other mirrorless I’ve used. Sony would be a player in this space, but as pointed out in the article, they don’t have the lenses I don’t see the rationale for APS-C/DX dslrs any more — bigger, heavier but only marginally better. IQ if at all. In a small Crumpler shoulder bag I’ve got the Em-1 and four lenses — an amazing amount of flexibility and power. To me it’s this or full frame.

Charles

No, except for an older lens like the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 this will focus m43s lenses faster than most/all SLRs on the market today. SAF is extremely quick.

When talking about the Sony A7 you say it is not weathersealed. This is incorrect both the Sony A7 & A7r are weathersealed.

”
The A7 can also only fire 5 fps to the EM-1’s 10 fps. It’s $300 more expensive and it isn’t weather sealed. So while the A7 might have some of the best image quality for a full frame camera out there, for now, it just doesn’t quite live up to the bar set by the E-M1 for all the other factors we want and expect from a camera of this caliber.

“

tbarribeau

Hi Cory, you’re right, that was a slip up on my part. The A7 and A7r are indeed weather-sealed, but not to the extent of the EM-1 (at least, not according to any reports I’ve seen!)

Great thanks! I have also heard the EM-1 is a tank – freezeproof as well.

Brad

Neither the A7 nor the A7r are weather-sealed. This description is not in ANY of the official documents or the user’s manual. Retailers have started removing this erroneous information from sites. Check your sources next time and don’t believe everything you read. It hurts your credibility.

Brad

The A6000 also focuses 10 percent faster than the OMD, but this isn’t mentioned in the updated info. Instead they’re talking about the new Leica – a pretty camera … that seriously lags in all the specs. Who writes this stuff?!

Carefree shooting in tough environments is yours thanks to comprehensive dust and moisture resistance measures that enhance reliability by helping to prevent water and dust from entering the body. These measures include sealing around the buttons and dials, as well as a protective double-layered structure that tightly interlocks panels and components.”

Now, you can argue if that constitutes “weather sealing” or not, and I’ll change the wording of the review to mention that it’s resistant rather than sealed—but I’d say that still indicated some degree of reliability in foul conditions.

Wilson Gomez

Good luck, there better way to spend $1000 on a mirrorless camera. Camera like the Panasonic GX7($900) and the Fuji X-E2($1000) both smaller and lighter. The EM1 will go down in history as the most overprice camera, why do you think Sony saw a 200% more then expected pre-order from the A7, A7R because for $300 you can get a full frame camera so yea Sony stole all of Olympus EM1 pre-order

kashirat

Out of curiosity, why no mention of the GX7 as a competitor to the EM1? Cheaper, and basically the same feature set.

I also get the feeling that if a viewfinder were to be so large as to have a 1x magnification, it would either have to be cropped down from 100% so that you could take it all at once, or else your eye wouldn’t be able to handle the entire scene without having to scan around. But again, not something I’m hugely knowledgable about since you just don’t see those big viewfinder around!

olee22

Excellent response, thank you!

What do you think then, what is a good, large magnification?

I mean that is large enough to compose the picture, but I can still view it comfortable with my eyes. About where is the sweet spot?

tbarribeau

That’s a good question — it depends a lot on your own eyes and eyesite (I’ve known a fair few people who, as their eyes of gone a bit worse with the years, have wanted more magnification). I’d say anything above a 0.65x is pretty good, and above 0.7x is great. I use a 0.67x equivalent (I think) for most of my work with a Nikon D7000, and I find it very large, bright, and easy to use.

If you get a chance, I’d say try and find a camera store that’ll let you play around with them a little, and try and get a feel for what works well with your own vision.

-Tim

olee22

Great, thanks a lot, then I’ll look for these 0.7x range!

fivetonsflax

I am farsighted and wear glasses. For me, the E-M5’s viewfinder was too small, and the E-M1’s is not. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Charles

Viewfinder magnification gets complicated and kind of meaningless by itself unless you understand the size of the capture medium. (film size/sensor size). Viewfinder magnification always is calculated with a 50mm lens and the subject size in the view finder compared to the size your naked eye would see. On a medium format camera 50mm is wide angle and the subject would appear small in the frame and likely smaller than you’d see in real life. On 43s or m43s 50mm is a telephoto lens and that subject would appear much larger than on medium format or 135 format (full frame)

Neither of these are wrong, but without understand the capture medium is smaller (film/sensor) the number has context. To compare against 135 format you’d have to divide by 2, getting .74x, comparing very well to modern full frame digital cameras.

It still gets more complicated because you are comparing different aspect ratios. The crop numbers really need to take into account photos of the same aspect ratio. 4/3s sensors tend not to be as wide. Cropping a 3:2 sensor image to 4:3 the m43s crop becomes 1.85 instead of 2. Cropping the 4:3 image to 3:2 gives m43s a 2.08 crop. A common round number would be 5:7 giving a 1.97x ratio. It’s not exactly 2.0 at any used ratio. This would also affect the view finder multiplication above. The height of the 4/3s finders often compared well, but the width was small due to the different aspect ratio. One could maybe compare the viewfinder area, but it’s debatable if that’s any more accurate.

The old OM film cameras had a .84x (standardized on 135) which was wonderful to use with manual focus lenses.

Sorry for the terribly complicated response, but it’s not something that can be explained easily. I hope it’s helpful, but I wouldn’t get too tied up in the numbers.

I probably should of posted this as a response to olee22. 🙁

tbarribeau

Yeah, we delve into that a little in the footnotes of the piece. That’s really interesting about the the sensor ratio, which I hadn’t heard before.

It’s interesting that the industry has accepted using a 35mm equivalent when talking focal lengths, but hasn’t done the same when it comes to viewfinders.

Charles

I take a bit of an issue with the claim that the D7100 has hundreds of lenses. Nikon has only 16 native DX lenses, Compared to 40 between between Olympus and Panasonic. You can use larger, heavier and more expensive FX lenses on the D7100. Even when you include all the FX lenses currently in production (including manual focus) you don’t get ‘hundreds of lenses’.

tbarribeau

Hi Charles,

I see the point you make, and you’re right that Nikon only had 16 native DX lenses. We’re including in that figure the huge amount of other Nikon lenses that the D7100 is compatible with, which is something that’s one of its big strengths. Without needing an adapter, it can mount full frame lenses (as you mentioned, and which Canon cannot), and since it has a built in AF motor, you can autofocus with any Nikon AF lens, stretching back to the mid-80s. That opens up a stunning array of vintage Nikon lenses — all of which can be used without adapter, with full metering, and with autofocus. Which I think is pretty impressive.

-Tim

Charles

Yes, there are about 400 F-mount lenses, but I believe that also includes pre-ai lenses which aren’t compatible as well as some rather odd and unaffordable lenses. I still think you are being disingenuous stating it with no caveats. Most of those lenses aren’t designed for DX, most aren’t even designed for digital and often don’t perform as well on digital sensors. The D7100 view finder isn’t as well suited for MF lenses. (although why is it even mentioned in a mirrorless article?)

The article for the most part is excellent though. I often point friends toward your reviews because the information is excellent. It’s nice to see Olympus finally producing cameras that are worthy of the heritage.

CLKAMG

I’ll save everyone and even this website time. The best NEW camera over 1000 thats mirrorless is the SONY A7 or A7R. FULL FRAME will blow the OMD. But likely won’t autofocus as quick as OMD. Generally smaller sensors for some reason have faster autofocus. My RX100 II autofocuses like a DSLR almost, insane. My RX1 is so slow : (

As I’m sure you spotted, we actually spend a fair bit of time in the review talking about the Sony A7 and A7r, and how they stack up to the E-M1. And yes, in terms of pure image quality, they’re better. But at the same time, they’re plagued by some other problems that are worth discussing, and we think means that the OM-D E-M1 is an overall better camera.

The focusing mechanism is substantially slower (as you mention), and also talking to a number of people who spent time with the Sonys at their unveiling, many of them mentioned that it mis-focused more often than they were happy with (and this was at a press event, not IRL).

There’s also the matter of lenses, with Sony only having five native full frame E-mount lenses, and requiring you to use an adapter for alpha mount.

If image quality is your only metric (which it is for some people, especially landscape and studio photographers), then sure, the A7r and A7 will get you sharper, cleaner images. But overall, we think the E-M1 is a better pick.

-Tim

gyamashita

i own the em5 and am quite happy with it. switched to m4/3 with the gf-1 after using nikon for a number of years. i agree with some of the posts here that the sony a7/a7r is intriguing, and i’m going to look at it one of these days to see if it offers all that i need/want in a mirrorless camera system.

BUT, for now, i agree with this review that m4/3 and the em1 are probably the best mirrorless SYSTEM you can buy. yes, FF will get you some amazing DOF and a better dynamic range…but at what expense? poor focusing? small cadre of lenses? poor ergonomics? i see the a7/a7r more as a proof of concept than as a ready system for most people who actually shoot cameras on a daily basis.

one area that aps-c cameras still outshine m4/3, however, is for sports shooting. though the em1 is better with its continuous tracking AF, it’s still not as good as dSLRs. other than that, i like how far m4/3 has come as a system and think that for most people, it offers the best selection of lenses and bodies and is the most usable.

Any thoughts on the Fuji X-Pro1? You mention the EM-1, but not its older cousin.

tbarribeau

I think the age of the X-Pro1 is really starting to show now — it’s part of that first crop of X-series cameras that had real focusing speed problems. If I’m remembering correctly, Fujifilm sped things up a bit thanks to firmware, and newer generations are better, but they’re still nowhere near the high speeds of the E-M1.

Add to that the huger array of M43 lenses, weather sealing, image stabilization, a much higher maximum ISO, external microphone input, articulated screen, and a comparatively huge viewfinder, the E-M1 comes out ahead in my books.

We’re well aware of the XT-1! We’re just waiting on a few more reviews coming through to help us be 100% sure we’re recommending the right camera. It’s going to be an interesting competition, because there are a legion more M43 lenses, but the X-mounts are generally considered better quality. The E-M1 has that fantastic stabilization system, but the XT-1 has better AF speed, etc.

jonmall

Small mistake in the post. The X-E2 has built in Wi-Fi.

tbarribeau

Ah, thanks for spotting that! Will fix!

meh

It hink you need too look at the XT-1 now! 😉

tbarribeau

We’re keeping a very close eye on the XT-1! Haven’t been quite enough reviews of it yet for us to form a proper judgement, but it’s getting close. Going to be a very tight battle, for sure. AF speed and (arguably) image quality, vs more and cheaper lenses and super image stabilization.

iewfinder magnification gets complicated and kind of meaningless by itself unless you understand the size of the capture medium. (film size/sensor size). Viewfinder magnification always is calculated with a 50mm lens and the subject size in the view finder compared to the size your naked eye would see. On a medium format camera 50mm is wide angle and the subject would appear small in the frame and likely smaller than you’d see in real life. On 43s or m43s 50mm is a telephoto lens and that subject would appear much larger than on medium format or 135 format (full frame)

Rick

The touchscreen is a nice improvement over earlier OM-D. I touched it once or twice, now I won’t let go at any price.

James

I have a 15 day old EM1 that I was loving until today when it has completely bricked for no reason. The on/off switch seems really loose which is likely part of the problem– bought the camera and associated lense for a trip to France (whcih I’m in the middle of) so this is pretty upsetting. Seems like build quality may be a serious issue….

tbarribeau

Oof, that’s rough. The fact that you’re still within the return window probably isn’t much help when you’re in France. Any chance you could get it looked at while you’re on the road?

Ido Scharf

Would be nice to see an update some time soon with the Fujifilm X-T1 properly reviewed here, as it’s still stuck in the “What to look forward to” section even though it’s been on the market for almost 6 months I believe. That’s a decade in the digital camera world.
But maybe you should wait for that new 18-135mm lens to be in the hands of more photographers before you draw a new conclusion.

tbarribeau

We actually have the X-T1 on hand right now, and one of our writers is doing a head to head between it and the E-M1!

kspace

Not sure how you can write this article without mentioning the value king in this class, the Sony a6000. It’s a particularly curious omission since you mention the deprecated NEX-7.

Sean T

He’s only looking at cameras with a body only price >$1000. I’m not convinced why you’d get an M1 or T1 over the a6000 myself, unless you really need a huge variety of glass or you want to shoot in the rain/dust/snow, but he’s only looking over $1000.

Sean T

I said that and then I went to DPreview to check out the image comparison between the X-T1 and the a6000. The difference in the noise in the RAWs are staggering. Adamdou discusss why above.

Jonathan F.V.

I remember seeing that Fuji overstates their ISOs. Fuji does still seem to have better high ISO IQ, but not as staggering as it appears. Per example, if the Fuji would do 1/30 of a second at ISO 3200, the A6000 would do 1/60 at ISO 3200. If you dropped the ISO to 1600 and used the same shutter speed, it would yield a lot more similar results. Also, from looking at DP Review’s tests, the Fuji’s images look like they’ve been smoothed out. But the images included in this article look pretty good. Anyway, the ISO advantage of the Fuji isn’t as good as it appears, as what really matters when you take handheld pictures in low light is keeping your exposure times fast enough not to get motion blur. And if you’re not limited by time… Well, just use base ISOs anyway!

For what I have read and seen (samples), Fuji X Cameras ISO are not directly comparable to other cameras (something to do with lower shutter speed tu maintain low iso setting) , so it’s clean ISO performance isn’t so great as first thought. Just something I think should be looked into and if so mentioned and taken into account on the image quality comparison.

amadou diallo

The X-T1 does indeed have a lower ISO sensitivity than rated. DPReview measured its JPEGs as being 1/2-2/3 EV less than marked, so ISO 6400 on the X-T1 gives about the same exposure as ISO 5000 on the E-M1, for example.

But, when I compare the noise results, the X-T1 has about a two-stop advantage. Factor in the ISO discrepancy and the Fuji still has a 1 1/2 to 1 1/3 advantage, which is significant.

For Raw files, Fuji uses baked-in noise reduction that can’t be disabled. Technically, this does make for a less direct comparison. But the results are very impressive with no obvious drawbacks to the noise reduction. So in practical terms this is an advantage for the X-T1.

The bottom line is that while the ISO discrepancy exaggerates the difference somewhat, low noise is still a significant advantage. One that’s immediately apparent in real world use.

Hope that makes sense.

speedgraphic

So you’re comparing cameras that bake in “secret” NR to ones that are honest about it? Seems a little weird. It’s really no surprise that a camera that applies NR will appear less noisy than one that doesn’t.

amadou diallo

The discussion above applies to raw files. Keep in mind JPEGs always have some NR baked in and those levels are never comparable across brands as each manufacturer has their own definition of default NR. The upshot is that if camera A applies baked-in NR and camera B doesn’t, and camera A still shows greater image detail, that’s a relevant advantage for someone considering both cameras.

speedgraphic

Not really, since camera B could use NR in post (like DxO PRIME NR) and still produce better results in A. In-camera software NR is almost always worse than professional desktop software NR.

The difference is that camera B gives you a choice as to where, when, and if you apply NR, but A doesn’t.

amadou diallo

For JPEGS, I’d agree that in-camera NR is almost always much worse than what you could do manually in post. The baked-in Raw NR we’re talking about with the X-T1 is of a vastly more subtle variety. It’s actually quite impressive. At ISOs beyond 6400 you’re still going to want to add manual NR if, say you’re making a large print of a very detailed subject.

tbarribeau

I’d also argue that comparing ISO shots between any two cameras from different manufacturers is inherently problematic, despite being a frequently used (and surprisingly useful) metric. To be honest, there’s almost no way of knowing how much noise reduction cooking happens behind the scenes, either in Raw or JPEG. We know that Fuji does it for Raw, but if another manufacturer did the same, is there any way we could really be sure that they do? It’s like how M43 embeds lens distortion data into every lens, and applies it to Raw files.

Also, keep in mind that as soon as you open a Raw file on any application, it applies its own processing to it. Raw files put through ACR/LR are different to those from Silkypix are different from those from first party applications are different from those from DxO. The very process of taking the raw data from a sensor and creating is “raw image” is transformative, as is the process of going from that raw image into an application, and that process is often a black box, where you don’t know exactly what happens.

From what I understand (though I could be wrong on this), DxOMark gets around this by detecting baked in modifications, which they can do because they write their own Raw processing software

But, as with everything, that induces its own set of biases and complications.

MacCruisekeen

I for one am very close to being sold on the XT-1, but at this point I figure I might as well wait until Photokina, and see if Fuji announces anything new that might change my mind (like the long-awaited X-Pro 2).

evan

The article mentions the XPro1 as having inferior AF and shoot speed, which were true with the initial firmware. Doesn’t the latest firmware update fix these issues?

amadou diallo

The X-T1 has a different AF system than the X-Pro 1, so it’s a better performer even with the firmware update.

mistermarkdavis

The Fuji X series cameras and lenses are fantastic. It is true that micro four thirds cameras have smaller sensors and this produces images with slightly more noise. However there are many advantages to having a smaller sensor. Comparable lenses are smaller and lighter and therefore less expensive. Micro four thirds currently has the best lens library for both primes and zooms of the mirrorless cameras.

That said the Fuji system is fantastic and has some really great lenses but the options are limited. It deserves to be considered the best. I personally recommend picking a system long term based on lenses that you will have for 20-30 years rather than comparing features on current cameras which you probably won’t be using 10 years from now. Please do your research on lenses and remember that focal lengths for APS-C and M43rds are not comparable. use 35mm equivalents. additionally the Sony system is particularly good and Samsung is doing some interesting things technology wise. I would avoid Nikon, Canon, and Pentax in the mirrorless space unless you already own a lot of accessories for their systems.

Undecided

I hope I did not miss it in the review but I don’t remember seeing a discussion of the kit lens. I am very tempted by the camera. I would just be starting out with the m43 system. Is the kit lens worth buying? The focal length range is right for me. But what about quality?

tbarribeau

Hi there,

We generally work under the assumption that people buy their camera with a kit lens (we discuss it a bit in our lens specific recommendations). As a generalization, kit lenses are good, but not great. They’re perfectly good for learning on, and are pretty flexible, but don’t expect miracles out of them. They’re usually worth picking up as a new user, just because the learning curve to another sort of beginner lens (usually the equivalent of a 50mm prime) is a bit steeper when transitioning from a point-and-shoot.

But generally speaking? Grab a kit lens—it’s not a bad place to start.

Undecided

Thank you. I am not coming from a p&s. I am coming from Canon SLR with lots of lenses. Would love a superb 35mm equivalent.

tbarribeau

Oh, that makes things a bit easier. There’s not a ton of difference from the kit on your Canon to the kit on M43—similar focal length, possibly better performance (especially for corner sharpness if you have an older Canon lens). But you know what a kit lens is about then, and are probably fairly well versed on if you think you need one or not—and there’s no shortage of really great prime lenses for M43!

Gabe

The X-Pro1 certainly DOES HAVE an eye sensor to turn off the screen when you look through the viewfinder. Your info is incorrect.

MysticCowboy

You say that a high end mirrorless camera only makes sense for those who are looking to trade up from a less capable camera, not for a DSLR user with a lens system. I can see where a younger person would think so. However, as many baby boomers look to spend more time with their cameras when they retire, you also have to look at weight. We older folks just can’t haul around as much stuff all day.

I’ve been shooting Nikon for a while and had seven lenses. When I got to use a Fuji X-E1 I sold the Nikon gear and bought two X-E2s. I had a D610 (upgraded by Nikon for a D600) and a backup D90. The savings in weight has allowed me to shoot more with less pain and fatigue. Yes, I gave up a lot of extra features and focusing speed along with a tiny drop in image quality (or gain against the D90). I also gave up an extra three and a half pounds in my camera bag. That’s a lot.

Dex Lane

One negative rarely mentioned in discussions of the X-T1is its poor performance with certain landscapes. Light green foliage can suffer terribly. Just a few minutes ago I shot foliage in the afternoon sun from a balcony high enough to be above the height of a wooded area with a variety of trees. I sold my Canon system, so have no direct comparison files, but I can’t imagine they’d have the serious “watercolor” effect marring the X-T1 files. I love this camera for so much else. But those who concentrate on landscapes, and wanting a mirrorless, should study the Fuji X files carefully to know what they are getting into.
BTW: The default raw conversion of Capture One beats that of PhotoNinja, both of which are seriously better than the jpegs from the camera. For those shooting landscapes with the X cameras, I’d highly recommend Capture One. And if anyone knows a better converter for files with foliage, please let me know.

speedgraphic

Exactly, this is due to the Fuji X-Trans sensor.

bsurg

I’ve heard about the “watercolor” effect as well, and chalked it up to Adobe’s poor X-Trans RAW conversions. Are you finding this with C1 and PhotoNinja as well? I’d like to do some tests with my X100T and Iridient, but there’s a foot of snow on the ground right now.

Al

Iridient Developer!! They (“He” really since it is just one guy) seem to have done a much better job with processing of RAW files from the X-Trans in comparison to everyone else.

Markus B.

Why Panasonics Lumix GH4 has not been included in this comparison?
It would have been a serious contender !!

The Panasonic Lumix GH4 shoots video well above its price with 4K out of the box, as well as 4:2:2 10 bit HDMI output, a 200-Mbps bitrate, ¼ speed slow motion, and built-in time code. If we’re speaking your language, this is the camera for you.

More depth of field from a camera with smaller pixels can be computed from the laws of optical physics.

But what do you want us to show with your 2 ‘comparative’ pictures showing different depth of field: that you are incapable of taking 2 frames of the same subject without changing your position?
Or that you are paid for Fuji advertising?
If you hadn’t moved while changing cameras, the impression of the picture hadn’t changed that much. What you did, was shooting Fuji from a shorter distance, so that for the human eye the bigger flower in the foreground seems more important and such sharper, leading or brain to take the background into less account – thus THINKING it is less sharp.
Additionally, you stepped sideways, to in favor of the Fuji place the 2 out-of-focus blossoms in front of the most uniform (= ‘unsharp’ to the human eye of a large picture element) background – the roadway, which you additionally allowed to leave open on the left side of the frame – leading our brains to even more ‘depth’.
So, in my opinion your example does not show physical facts, but mind directing principles of advertising photography.

tbarribeau

You’re more than welcome to disagree with our conclusions about which is the better camera of the two, but to claim that a larger sensor doesn’t produce a smaller depth of field, and that the visual effect is due to trick photography is disingenuous. Furthermore, claiming that we were paid out by a manufacturer for our work not only ignores the substantial amount of work that was put into this piece, and deeply and fundamentally misunderstands the way that we work here at the Wirecutter.

Monty Oldfeild

I’ve used the Fuji XT-1 expensively since it can out and have many lenses for the system. I’ve also been very happy with the image quality for portrait shoots and shoots up to 800 ISO. I do fine that the Raws out of the XT-1 are difficult to work with and not every linear compared to Canon models. Also I do fine that on landscapes taken above 800 ISO the noise does get pretty bad.

For the last two and a half weeks I have been given the Samsung NX1 with it’s two S Pro lens and the battery grip. Firstly and this is a personnel thing i’ve never liked Samsung as a company or there products! When I first got the camera the body weight is similar too the XT-1 but with the S lens quickly becomes quite a heavy system. I decided the battery grip was a waste of time as I try to keep my kit weight down so just carry extra batteries instead.

For the first week of my test I was lucky to be travelling the Amalfi Coast. I used the camera and both lenses very heavy taking every type of shot.

It was not until I got home and started looking at the Raws in Lightroom that I noticed that they are better that out of the XT-1 in many ways.

My first concern before the test was that because the Fuji had no sensor filter the images from it would be sharper than the Samsung.

I was amazing the NX-1’s images are razor sharp in fact so sharp that I did to need to add any sharpening to any for my final shots even the heavy crops.

Plus the colour range and saturation looked so much more real. The dynamic range is simply put in a different class in the Fuji. I amount of detail you can get from it’s Raws files is better than from any Full frame or APS C camera I have ever used.

The AF with high speed shooting I though would never get close to my EOS1DX with L glass, but having shoot a moto cross event the hit rate was higher than I think I would of got from the 1DX. Thats amazing.

Also the Bokeh from both lens was simply fantastic, better than any prime on the XT-1. The Bokeh from the 50-150 into bright light was I think the best i’ve ever seen.

I could go on for hours about how good the still images are from this camera. I don’t like Samsung or there products but have just orders two for this kits!

I do not professionally shoot video but having tried it and watch it back on a friends 4K 65 inch TV it is better than watching National Geo in HD!

I played with the Sony RX100 m3 because of the 1 inch Backside sensor and it was amazing for such a small camera.

I no that samsung are so far the first people to take this sensor to APS-C size. At this size with good glass I think it better than most Pro Full frame camera!

If anybody made this sensor full frame or Medium Format. It would be a game changer.

I honestly take my hat off to Samsung for pushing the envelope to make this camera. I used to find that they would simply copy and follow the herd.

If they continue to push you developments in camera sensors then I think the samsung camera system may become better than Sony, Fuji Etc.

Al

Don’t let this turn you off from Fuji! Lightroom is notoriously bad at converting the RAW files from the X-Trans sensors. They have promised to upgrade their algorithms but that has yet to happen. I would highly recommend performing the raw conversion in Iridient Developer before bringing them into Lightroom. This software is by far the best at dealing with the sensor array used on X-Trans sensors right now. You will see improved detail and color rendition.

My 2 cents (feel free to ignore if this is not useful): I don’t think anointing one camera as the best is useful, given that there are different systems, like Sony, m4/3 and Fuji. If someone has multiple lenses from one system, they are unlikely to buy another one. Maybe it would be more useful to point out the best camera in each of these families, rather than just anointing one as the best.

tbarribeau

We delve into this a bit in the “Should I upgrade” section. Obviously your choice is going to change heavily if you’re already invested into a lens system—this piece is based on the idea that you’re coming in fresh, and willing to start anew. But we do delve into the specific strengths and weaknesses of models from those other families too.

Fan

i m in the market for a mirrorless camera. i was initially going to buy a nikonD7200 since i already own a d40x and a coupls of lens flash etc. So i was reading into nikon 1 v3 hoping i would get a deal on it during thanks giving. but when i looked at nikon 1 j4 it was pretty impressive too and the major difference being electronic shutter vs manual shutter and some controls and knob.. i wanted to use one of Nikon as i can get a adapter and make use of the lenses i have, sony a6000 indeded looks nice but that means i ahve to change a whole lot (nikon flash is useless anyways with these). when reading this article and going thru these commens i see no mention of nikon or canon , why ? is nikon mirrorless inferior comapared to these cameras ?

tbarribeau

To put it bluntly, neither Nikon nor Canon’s mirrorless cameras are that good. We talk about them a bit more in some of our other pieces

Nikon’s 1-series has some really good autofocus technology, but lags behind the competition significantly when it comes to image quality. The Canon M was essentially a flop, mostly due to glacial autofocus when it launched, and has no lens selection to speak of.

That does change a bit when you talk about existing lenses, though. These guides are all written from the perspective of a new buyer, and having an existing body of lenses and accessories changes things a lot, since you’ve already invested into the system, and the prospect of selling all that off is daunting. And frankly, the best camera is the one you have with you—if buying a camera that doesn’t take the most perfect photos in the world, but lets you use a lot more lenses that you already have, and you’re more likely to take it out shooting, then that can make sense, too.

Vintersorg

Not even one mention of how amazing the Sony A7-cameras are for use with old manual lenses (with adapter). I haven’t bought a single FE lens for my A7 (got the kit lens, and its nice, but the rest are so damn expensive 😛 Will buy a few eventually though). Instead i use several old Canon lenses. With the A7 i really get the 50mm on my 50mm Canon 1.2 and i also get the focus peaking colors (i don’t use the zoom-in feature, too annoying), which makes it easier to nail the manual focus. These cameras are a dream come true if you want to use old lenses. And manual focusing on these old lenses is fantastic fun, and feels great.

I also got a hold of the fantastic Canon FD 135 f/2 for €200. Talk about alot of glass on that bad boy 😛 But gives amazing pictures on the A7. Probably beats the crap out of several ALOT more expensive lenses.

I always recommend the A7-cameras to people. SO worth the price!

tbarribeau

The A7 series are great cameras, but we intentionally don’t recommend full frame cameras at the Wirecutter. Full frame cameras (even the more affordable ones) are professional level devices, and there are considerations that need to go into pro level gear that are more individually specific than we can account for in a generalized recommendation. There are some really great, in-depth resources out there for that sort of research, but when you’re investing that much money into a high-level piece of gear, you really need to make sure it’s the ideal fit for your needs.

And while the A7-series do work well with adapters, there’s a major shortage in native FE-mount lenses. And we don’t blanket recommend adapters either, because they add a whole new layer of complexity to the situation. Since they’re inherently adding more layers of optics to the lens, they necessarily change optical performance, which means lens recommendations don’t always hold, certain key functions don’t work, and depending on who made the adapter or what sort it is, you can get radically different performance.

But that’s really awesome that it’s the right fit for you!

osv

tbarribeau, it sounds like you have zero experience with adapters.

the fact is that no one who has an a7 series camera uses adapters with “layers of optics” as you claimed there, because the a7 series are full frame cameras… you are confusing speed booster junk that is used on crop sensor cameras, with simple cheap adapters.

i use any of a dozen cheap adapters on my a7r, they have zero effect on the image quality, because there aren’t any additional “layers of optics”, so they can’t alter the performance of the lens at all.

tbarribeau

I might have phrased that poorly. When I said optical elements, I didn’t necessarily mean extra layers of glass. But rather, that they add things to the lens, and that changes optics.

Adapters inherently alter the optical formula of a lens because they add something to the lens. Even something as simple as a mount adapter with no other features alters the distance that a first party lens would sit from the focal plane by virtue of simply adding adding another layer of something to the design. Focal planes then have to be tweaked to account for fitting lenses on bodies they were never designed to match with.

An adapter, if not manufactured to incredibly precise standards, can also have issues with screwing up the lens alignment. If the bayonets aren’t at just the right spot, the lens can be slightly rotated, which leads to uneven performance. Or if it’s not perfectly flat or even the tiniest bit thicker on one side than the other, that changes the optical plane slightly, leading to problems in corners.

This isn’t to say that adapters are a bad option. They work really well for a lot of people! And it sounds like they’re the right thing for you! But between all the different brands and types of adapters that are out there, from super cheap ones you can grab from eBay to precisely manufactured versions with tolerances as good as those of the lens maker, there’s too wide of a world for us to blankly recommend them. Yes, they can be good, and yes they can be used to excellent effect, but they’re not for everyone. And it’s not a replacement for a full range of first party lenses.

speedgraphic

What sort of advice changes when you’re looking at full-frame bodies? There are numerous full-frame bodies that cost the same as the camera you’re recommending above, so it’s not just about “high-level gear”.

tbarribeau

It’s not just about price (though that’s often a factor), and the overall drop in sensor prices over the last few years has seen major price drops in many camera types—including both full-frame and medium format (seriously, can you believe you can buy a full frame camera for $8,000 nowdays? That’s bonkers!)

But a full frame camera is inherently more of a specialized device than a crop frame. Apart from the A7 series, they’re significantly bulkier, and full frame glass is notably larger and more expensive (again, most of the time) when compared to crop sensor lenses.

Full frame cameras are generally marketed towards professional users, and high-end enthusiasts, both of which are categories that are going to have very specific needs, as well as knowledge of those needs. To put it bluntly, if you’re shopping for a full frame camera, you already know what things you’re looking for, and they might be very different from what everyone else needs. If you’re shopping for full frame, there is no “best camera for most people”, but there’s very much a best camera for you. Because maybe you need to squeeze out every last pixel of sharpness, so you want something without an AA filter. Or maybe you do a lot of outdoors work, so you need weather sealing. Maybe you shoot in the studio, so can afford to have a slower burst speed in exchange for higher resolution. Or you do low light videography, so the insane high ISO and 4k video of the A7s would work for you.

Full frame cameras are usually specialist devices. They tend to be large, expensive, and match specific use cases.

No, that isn’t always the case, but it tends to be.

So if you’re the sort of person who wants a full frame camera, then you already have enough knowledge about what you’re looking at and what you need—or where to go for that info—that you’re better sorted to researching and picking according to what you require, rather than a generalist article like this.

berndburkert

I don’t get the point how adapters (to use a vintage SLR lens on a mirrorless) would change optical performance? My current understanding is, that the adapter is just ‘a tube’, adding the right amount of distance between lens and sensor, to compensate for the reduced physical dimensions (there used to be the mirror those days) of the mirrorless?

Jean Blanc

I am a Canon user and I shoot with a 40D and 5D MkII and several L lenses. I have just sold a G1X because it’s poor autofocus and macro. I’m looking at the Oly OMD M10 to replace it as the day to day camera, leaving the reflex for studio sessions and “serious” projects. What do you think about? is there any other good alternative for this purpose? I don’t mind if the new camera is a bit bigger than the G1X, but it is the camera I will carry almost every day! and my budget is limited. Your comments will be very much appreciated. Sorry about my english if it is not very good.

If you’re looking for a point-and-shoot, we do love the RX100 III (and its predecessors) and some folks have squeezed fairly good macro performance out of it—and it’s great for something small and good to grab on your way out the door

Thank you for your quick answer. By the way, I’m not very fond of Sony cameras but suddenly something has come to my mind. Would it make sense to buy the EOS100D? I know it is not a pocketable camera but it is not very much bigger than the M10 (that I like) and the lenses that I would have to buy would suit as well to my Canon equipment. Probably the 20mm or a pancake. The IQ of this camera should be superior to the 4/3 or the compact ones. Thank you for your comments. I’m very sorry but when I have to take the decision of buying a new camera I can be several days “eating my brain” as we say in Spanish. Jean Blanc ((I have problems to login)

tbarribeau

Seeing as you already have some Canon bodies and lenses, the 100D/SL1 makes a bit of sense. You’ve already got all that glass, so a backup small body with a pancake would fit really well into your current setup.

Image quality is arguable in either direction. DxOMark puts the E-M10 on top, but bigger sensors do have advantages for DoF

In your place, I’d be tempted to go for the SL1/100D just because of the lenses. Not having to buy a bunch more lenses is great, and then if you wanted to slap something bigger on it, you could. But the E-M10 is still a compelling camera.

speedgraphic

I don’t think you understood the point of that link – what E-mount lenses look like mated to FE-mount full frame Sony cameras. That’s what it looks like when you don’t turn on crop mode. When crop mode is on, these lenses work perfectly, though at a lower resolution because they don’t cover the whole sensor. It’s kinda worrying that you’re willing to slam Sony like that without even understanding their tech.

tbarribeau

You’re right, we put that wrongly in the write-up. But at the point where you’re essentially transforming your full-frame device into a crop-sensor one in order to get access to the more than handful of lenses that are natively FE supported, you have to start asking if that’s worth the more than double the price of a Sony a6000 compared to an a7-series.

I’d call it a stretch to say we “slam Sony” though, considering we recommend them multiple times in other areas of the site, not to mention that we’ve written an entire guide to Sony E-mount lenses, which is pretty popular amidst users just getting into mirrorless shooting. It’s just in this case, we don’t think the ecosystem is mature enough to recommend, and we don’t think full frame cameras are for everyone. But Sony’s definitely trying to amp up the lens base, now to the point where E-mount users are feeling a bit left behind!

Based on your recent string of comments, you’re obviously an a7 user who loves their camera. Which is awesome! That’s great that it’s working so well for you! No BS, I’m always happy to find people who are really passionate about the cameras that they shoot. But like I said, we don’t think it’s the right device for most people, even at a premium price point.

Though I would love it if Sony finally did a followup to the NEX7…

Ignacio España

I think you guys should alert the consumer of the current price of the A7, considering it’s about the same price as the Fuji, except full frame.

JustAPhotographer

The biggest drawback to this camera that I see is no stabilization in neither the camera nor most of the lenses. I am sure the camera/lenses take wonderful photos, but I am mystified why Fuji would hamstring their otherwise great camera system by not including something so basic and useful as stabilization. Further to this is why reviews, like this one, do not mention this lack or only mention it in passing, and do not see it as a drawback. Am I way off base here? Am I putting too much importance on stabilization that it really does not make that much difference?

tbarribeau

It’s definitely something that Fujifilm is missing compared to some of the competition, but it’s actually not as dire as you might think. The majority of the lenses that don’t have OIS are fast primes. Namely, the 14/2.8, 18/2, 23/1.4, 27/2.8, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 60/2.4 Macro. With those, the large maximum aperture means you can usually push the shutter speed high enough with a wide open aperture to shoot hand-held. And the only zoom lens missing stabilization is the 16-55/2.8, which does okay for itself for the same reason.

We would definitely like to see a bit more OIS on more lenses, but it’s usually a problem you can work around.

JustAPhotographer

Thank you. That’s so obvious, so why hadn’t I considered that? You’re right of course wide maximum aperture does obviate to a large degree the need for OIS. It would be nice nonetheless, as you also say, that OIS were more common. Maybe it’s a cost / weight / keeping-things-simple consideration from Fuji. I’ll re-look at Fuji with your comment in mind. Thanks.

Al

Just out of curiosity, which of their lenses would you like to see OIS on? Like Tim said, all of their zooms except the 16-55/2.8 have it and their longest prime is a 90mm. I could see that maybe requiring OIS but the gems in their lens lineup are the 16mm F1.4 (new), 35mm F2 (new), and the 56mm F1.2 and none of those need OIS.

On a side note, I don’t own the 55-200 or the 50-140 but I have heard that the OIS on those two zooms is ridiculously good.

The Fujinon primes are fast lenses, especially if you get the f1.4 models. But M.Zuiko Premium lenses are only a fraction behind at f1.8. Combine that with the IBIS and you have a horse race.

If the Fuji is 2 stops better in sensor noise, the Olympus has more than that in IBIS. So, in the end, you shoot at much lower shutter speeds, but still keep the ISO manageable.

I don’t know that Fuji “beats” Olympus at a given light level when you count in the ISIB against Fuji’s unstabilized lenses. Of course, put a stabilized lens on the Fuji and you’re off to the low light races. Too bad there are so few stabilized choices and several of them are not very fast.

Kamp

Should i choose nx 1 or omd em1? Think about the lenses too

tbarribeau

Overall, we’d say the E-M1, due to it having the wides lens selection available of any mirrorless camera. If you’re looking for something with a larger sensor for higher image quality, we’d recommend the Fujifilm X-T1 over the NX1.

umijin

How about for nature photography? I do a lot of macro/close up work of invertebrates and plants, and occasional wildlife shots of larger critters. Is the 60mm macro up to snuff?

tbarribeau

The 60mm can do a pretty good job for macro shots! Check out some of what you can see on Flickr

I’m trying to decide between the XT-1 and the Olympus OM-D EM-10…. This will be my first mirrorless. Would you say that the XT-1 is really $1k better than the Olympus? If there is a significant jump in quality I don’t mind the extra expense.

tbarribeau

In terms of pure image quality? The X-T1 does take better photos, especially at high ISO, but you might not notice it unless you really crank the ISO up.

Performance wise, the E-M10 is pretty similar to the E-M1 that we discuss in this piece, but is lacking some of the waterproofing and additional controls and modes, so you can base your appraisal of the quality on that.

If you’re willing to invest, the X-T1 also gives you access to the Fujifilm corpus of lenses, which are all incredibly high quality, but have a correspondingly high price. Micro Four Thirds, on the other hand, has cheaper alternatives for when you’re not sure if you want to jump into the higher-end stuff straight away.

Javis425

Thank you for the quick response! In your opinion, is it worth it to get the kit lens? Do you think it would be better to just get the body only and then purchase something like the XF 23mm F1.4 R to use as an everyday lens? On Amazon right now, it’s only about $400 to include the kit lens but if it doesn’t stand up to the other lenses I’d rather just put that $400 towards a zoom lens or something.

We have an entire paragraph devoted to the NX-1 in the piece which lays out our problems with it—but the short version is size and price. For that much money and bulk you can get a mid-range DSLR with faster AF, more lenses, and a better viewfinder.

AndyF

The current price of this awesome camera with the 18-55mm is 1449.00 on Amazon and B&H.

What do you think about the new X-T10. The difference between the 2 cameras with an 18-55 2.8/4 zoom is about $350.00.

tbarribeau

We’re very excited about it! We’re still trying to figure out where it sits in our section breakdowns, since it floats around the $1000 mark, which is our cut-off between mid-range and high-end. And also waiting for a bit more of a critical consensus to come in, so we can see what other people are saying about it.

But it really does look like most of the camera that the X-T1 is, but for a significant discount. And if you don’t need the weather sealing, and won’t mind the smaller EVF and worse screen, it seems like a solid deal.

Magnus

In the Article you mention the new Sony A7 series but the ones mentioned are the originals. Versions 2 of them all have been released or about to I think and more lenses for them. Just wondering if these are on the radar to be looked at. As they sound like quite the cameras.
I’m currently looking for a new camera, have an old Canon EOS M. I have no lenses so i’m trying to decide what system to buy into to start investing in some lenses and a great camera.

tbarribeau

Just to follow up on the update—we really do think Full Frame cameras, across the board, are too specialist for us to make a recommendation that’s right for most people. If you’re at the point where you’re buying a FF, you’re either a pro, or a dedicated enough amateur that you’re going to do the research and make the decision yourself based on your exact needs. And with each of the A7-series being generally very strong in one category and less so in others, we would end up with dozens of suggestions for dozens of needs.

Magnus

Thank for the info and after reading that farther down I understand. Just love the site and the work you guys do so was looking for info from you guys but completely understand!

Another question though, it’s about your mid-range pick, the Nikon D7100, i know it says “Wait’ and there’s some other items being looked at. Yesterday on your guys Deal Page, there was a deal for a refurbished Nikon D7100, anyways in that post it called it your “Previous” top pick….

Just wondering if that was accurate and to wait for the new update of that article?

tbarribeau

New pick for mid-range DSLR is D7200, expect the updated piece in a couple of weeks

Sean T

Spoilers! Actually no, not really.

Laura

I have a daughter who is interested in photography; has a manual Nikon FG film camera she’s been using for a year along with a film Holga, and will be taking her first digital photog class in a month and needs a DLSR with manual settings. I’m struggling with the best camera option for her at a reasonable student price. We looked at the Fujifilm T1 recently, and she was drawn to it due to the manual controls, but I was turned off by the price ($1,500-$1,800 for a student). I’ve found a very good price at the local camera store on the older version Olympus OMD E10 and wondering if that would be a good alternative for a new student just venturing into the digital world. I’m also struggling with whether to purchase mirrorless or go with the Nikon 5200 or 7000, which seem to have more reasonable price lens options and seem like would be as suitable – also finding pretty good deals on those cameras.

Any thoughts you could share for best options for a student would be greatly appreciated.

tbarribeau

Pretty much any mirrorless camera we recommend will have full manual controls, it’s just the cheaper ones are a little bit harder to access them. So regardless if you pick up a Sony a5100, Olympus E-M10, or Fujifilm X-T10 (the three we currently recommend somewhere on the site or other), all would work for the piece.

My suggestion would the Olympus E-M10. It’s widely available for an excellent price, it has external manual controls rather than requiring fiddling with menus, it has a pretty good viewfinder, speedy autofocus, and of all the mirrorless cameras we recommend, it has the widest array of affordable lenses.

Seeing as she’s already fairly advanced, the Sony a5100 might be a bit simple for her, and the lack of a viewfinder might be frustrating. The Fujifilm X-T1 is excellent, but she might not need the weatherproofing, and the price (especially when you start looking at lenses) is prohibitive.

For a DSLR, we’d suggest the Nikon D7200 or D7100. Both were major upgrades from the D7000, and are fantastic SLRs. If that’s a bit much, the D3300 is also great at a much lower price—but with quite a few fewer features. The downside of a DSLR is that while you might have access to more lenses, they’re much larger and heavier. Great battery life though.

My inclination would be the Olympus OM-D E-M10 for a good combo of price, performance, features, and portability.

Mike

I currently have an aging Canon T2i and Tamron 17-50 F2.8 lens. It’s served me well for years, but it’s time to replace it, and I have a good idea of what my needs are now. I primarily shoot while traveling, of many varied but common things: landscapes and waterfalls, architecture and museums, macros of flowers, nighttime long-exposures of cities and stars, and gatherings with friends in poorly-lit places. I’m looking for something that can accommodate all of the above scenarios, has better image quality and low-light performance than my current gear, and is ideally smaller and lighter to more easily travel with. I also don’t want to carry any extra lenses, and I would rather have great jpegs than continue having to edit raws, if possible. Price isn’t a big factor.

I’ve asked others, and the most common recommendations were the Fuji X-T1/X-T10 with kit 18-55, and the Sony RX100 IV. They both look very nice and are recommended here, but are so different it’s hard to know which direction to pick.

With the X-T1, the image quality is of course better, and the jpegs look great, but with only the kit lens maybe it’s not worth carrying over a more portable option. I’m also not sure if the kit lens can get the same depth of field I’m used to. The constant F2.8 lens is big and heavy, and it’s hard to give up zoom and use one of the excellent primes as a single travel lens.

With the RX100, I’m not sure if the quality will substantially beat a DSLR, even though it’s an older one, and I might have to use raw if the jpegs aren’t Fuji-level. I also have the same depth of field concerns as with the X-T1. But if something so small could really fulfill everything I’m looking for, that would be amazing.

Which would you pick? One of the two or something else entirely? I keep going back and forth, so thoughts and advice would be so helpful. Thanks!

Tim Barribeau

Tricky question! You’ve pretty successfully identified the drawbacks of both! The DOF issue will be much more of a problem with the RX100 due to the smaller sensor, but the large aperture helps mitigate a bit.

One thing I would mention is that the RX100 IV probably isn’t worth it over the RX100 III for most people, since it’s mostly about video and slightly better AF for a fairly high price tag boost.

There are probably a million different opinions about what to look for—I’ve definitely traveled with just the RX100 III and really enjoyed it, but the large sensor and better lenses on Fujifilm will lead to better images if you can deal with the weight.

One option that might be doable is to get the X-T10, and rather than lug around the fixed f/2.8, bring along 3-4 prime lenses? That way you can tailor your kit to what you need for that day on your travels. Use the pancake most of the time, and then also pack something longer and wider for other situations?

Definitely scope out used gear for lenses if you want to try and bump down the price a bit. KEH.com is a pretty good option.

David Fein

any updates for the sony A7RII, I know it is substantially more expensive, but would greatly appreciate any feedback/reviews regarding this camera, especially in comparison to the gh4

Tim Barribeau

I think I replied to you over in the underwater camera post! But to reiterate, we believe that full frame cameras aren’t something that we should recommend, because they’re inherently specialist devices. If you’re looking at buying full frame, you need to know your own specific needs clearly enough, and have a firm enough grasp of each options limitations, that any rec we could make probably wouldn’t fit what you need. Even something as straightforward as “which Sony A7 model should I get” is confusing, seeing as you have the baseline A7, the *s series which is lower res but higher sensitivity; or the *r series, which is higher resolution but slower focus, but that’s been improved in the mark II model, and so on and so forth. There’s way too much to pick apart about what will work with the way you need to shoot.

Plus the whole lenses issue.

fran dollinger

Because of arthritis I’m looking into the mirrorless. I was looking into the Olympus em1 and 2 of the 2.8 lens. I shoot tons of wildlife, birds and grandchildren. I have d7100 and the newer 80 to 400 and get fantastic pics. Living in Colorado is a photographers dream. I don’t see any lens that would replace that lens. Also the 16mp is not enough when cropping. The Fuji that is your top pick is sounding better than the Olympus. I want fast autofocus for birds and sharp pictures. Should I wait for a 24 mp camer. It made a big difference in the D 90 to the d7100 when cropping.
Fran dollinger

Tim Barribeau

Unfortunately, it seems Olympus is sticking with the 16MP sensor for the immediate future, but they’ve really done some incredible things with it. I wouldn’t totally ignore it, unless you’re really cropping down extremely small sections of the original image. And the other advantage to the Olympus system over the Fujifilm system is that overall it’s smaller and lighter, which might be easier on your hands. That said, hands down, the Fujifilm takes better photos, and has higher quality (but very expensive) lenses.

As for lenses, the ones that would most directly compare are the Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8, which is a very high end zoom. It’s not quite as long as the 80-400 (they’re the equivalents of 80-300mm and 120-600mm respectively) but it’s fantastic, especially in low light.

For the Fujifilm, the closest is probably 50-140mm f/2.8, which is again fairly pricey, but a great piece of glass.

Faisal

My 2 cents (feel free to ignore if this is not useful): I don’t think anointing one camera as the best is useful, given that there are different systems, like Sony, m4/3 and Fuji. If someone has multiple lenses from one system, they are unlikely to buy another one. Maybe it would be more useful to point out the best camera in each of these families, rather than just anointing one as the best.

How does the X-T1 compare with the X-T10? Looking at the specs I cannot see a great difference to account for the price difference. Thanks!

Tim Barribeau

The biggest difference is that the X-T1 is weather sealed, where the X-T10 is not. You need a weather sealed lens if you want to really take that thing out and play with it in the rain, but if you’re an outdoor photographer, that’s a big deal. The X-T1 also has a bigger EVF, an ISO dial, a larger shot buffer so you can shoot off more high speed images at once, and an overall slightly different size and shape.

James Whitehouse

I own both the X-T1 and E-M1, and I think a small part of this (overall good) review could be misleading to less experienced photographers. I know the current vogue is to shoot everything with huge amounts of background blur, but the Olympus E-M1 having a smaller sensor is only a disadvantage in this respect if shooting, say, classic portraits (although one would probably use a longer lens for compression anyway). For shooting most landscape shots, more depth of field for a given focal-length, and f-stop is a desirable thing, so it shouldn’t be mentioned only as a disadvantage to m4/3.

Tim Barribeau

That’s true—but on an X-T1 you can always close down the aperture a bit to easily widen the depth of field, but there’s a hard limit in the other direction with M43. And it also comes up with close-range still life work, like food and product photography.

James Whitehouse

Hm, but there is also a ‘hard limit’ to how much you can stop down too, ultimately, it’s not like you can just do that infinitely. For a given angle of view, you can never have the same depth of field with, say a 35mm on APS-C as you ultimately will with a 25mm m4/3. If you need a close foreground in focus as well as distant landscape, m4/3 has a definite advantage here.

Tim Barribeau

But in practice, the difference for getting the maximal DOF is pretty minor. Let’s do some back of the envelope calculations

Compare a M43 sensor vs a Fujifilm one (E-PL3 vs X-Pro1 since the database here isn’t perfect), and then let’s compare a 35mm on the Fuji vs a 25mm on the Olympus, for vaguely similar FOVs. With the Fujifilm, at f/16, your hyperfocal length gets you everything from 6.35 feet to infinity in focus. On M43 at f/16, it’s 4.315 feet to infinity. So yes, M43 will get you a bit more in focus, but for a landscape shot, I’d say an extra two feet isn’t a huge deal.

And there are also generally bigger advantages to stopping down the bigger your sensor is (rule of thumb and all that). Roughly, larger sensor lenses and associated lenses hit their sweet spot for maximum sharpness at narrower apertures than smaller sensors. So a M43 lens might have its best sharpness at f/5.6 or f/6, and on APS-C it might not be to past f/16. Though this is also super dependent on the lens.

It’s an interesting discussion, and you definitely reap the inverse benefit from a smaller sensor with having a wider aperture most of the time. But my argument would be that when you need a really wide aperture, the advantage you get from a smaller sensor is fairly minor in terms of how your image finally comes out, whereas when you’re shooting up close and want to limit the depth of field, the benefits of a large sensor are much more immediately visible.

Don’t forget about diffraction limits setting in at small apertures. I’d figure at f/16 diffraction would be significant for nearly any lens/sensor.

Tim Barribeau

I’ll freely cop to not having as good of an understanding of diffraction limits as I should, but I think there’s a few more issues there, too. I think larger pixels can help offset diffraction limits? And also pixel layout and binning can assist.

I think (though again I could be wrong) that film behaved differently with diffraction limits, which is why groups like f/64 were able to get such insanely sharp images.

James Whitehouse

Film did behave slightly differently, it was more forgiving of diffraction than fine pitch modern digital sensors.

However, if you’re talking about f/64, you’re probably into the realms of 8×10 view cameras. For the same angle of view of a 35mm lens on the Fuji (50mm equiv. Full Frame) you’d be looking at approx a 360mm lens on the 8×10. Stopping down to f/64 will give you *less* dof than the Fuji at f/16 (8×10 = 17.2 ft – infinity at f/64, Fuji = 6.34ft = infinity at f/16).

The reason view camera photos are tack sharp front to back is because they used tilt to rotate the plane of sharp focus, not because of an advantage in f/stop vs aov inherent in the format.

James Whitehouse

OK, so just for kicks, we could apply the same DOF calc to the opposite scenario. Same two lenses, but up close and wide open with a subject distance of 4 feet:

Is .1 ft here more “immediately visible” than 2 odd ft is in the other scenario? Who knows, because what’s immediately visible in each shot would be the size of the CoCs at each point through the subject, and in the background, and how quickly they transition from perceptive sharpness to perceptive unsharpness, etc., etc. This is all highly subjective. I put focus in “”s above because none of the shot is in true sharp focus in either scenario apart from one plane of actual focus distance, and the rest of the perception of “in focus” depends not only on one person’s impression of acceptable sharpness, but viewing conditions, distance, media, size, which is why different values for CoC need to be applied.

So, to make the blanket statement that one scenario is immediately more noticeable than the other is, at best, grossly oversimplifying the problem.

Diffraction is lens dependent, but, to be honest, I’ve never seen an APS-C, or even FF, lens whose performance peaks at anywhere near f/16. For example, if we look at the same two lenses on photozone’s test site, the Fuji 35mm f/1.4 starts diffraction limiting at f/11, while the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 starts diffraction limiting at… ‘beyond f/8’ (i.e., assume around f/11 also). Both lenses, by the way, are past their peak sharpness by even this stage anyway.

Basically, what the Fuji gains in extra defocus at the wide end of a given angle of view, the Olympus gains in extra depth of focus at the other, it’s just physics, and why both are very slightly more suited to different purposes.

In actual daily use, with a mixture of landscape, general, and casual portrait photography with both systems, I personally see exactly what I’d expect – a small, but sometimes rather useful gain in landscape depth of sharpness on my Olympus, and a slightly better defocus (depending on subject-background distance, etc.) on my Fuji, which again, can be very useful in the right shot.

There is a caveat, though – I was very worried about not being able to get enough background blur when I moved first from FF DSLR to the Fuji, then added m4/3 to my arsenal. In practice however, I usually find myself stopping down even on the Fuji to have more than one of my model’s eyes in focus, or more than a fraction of a cup of coffee if I’m shooting food, etc. On the Olympus I can often shoot wide open for the same DOF, which gives rounder, fuller OOF discs (stopping down usually starts to make them out of round after a couple of stops).

Conversely, I personally know at least one pro landscape photographer who ditched a Pentax 645D in favour of a D810 because he wasn’t able to get enough depth of sharp, critical focus for the sizes he prints.

Tim Barribeau

Good point about diffraction, I didn’t dive deep enough into that.

And I think you’re also hitting the nail on the head with the different formats holding their own in different situations. But I really do think that if you’re going for a super narrow depth of field, an inch and a half difference at f/1.4 will make a lot more noticeable a difference than two feet for a landscape.

Brent Singer

Help!

I can’t decide between the Fuji Xt-1 and the Nikon D7200. It’s my first venture into owning a ‘serious’ camera. I love the practicality and size of the Fuji, and I can see myself using it on a daily basis because it’s so portable. The thing that’s holding me back is what I’ve read about its wildlife photography capabilities. Granted it would only make up 25% of the use of the camera but it is something I enjoy and wouldn’t want to be limited in not being able to use the camera for that purpose as well.

Will the Fuji hold it’s own on a safari?

Thanks.

Tim Barribeau

Out of curiosity, what have you heard about the X-T1 that makes you think it won’t hold its own so well with nature photography? It’s not something I’ve specifically heard mentioned, and I’m interested to see what the issue might be.

If you use a good zoom lens, you’re probably going to do pretty well for yourself

The D7200’s ability to shoot in a cropped mode with better frame coverage may mean that it’s able to track fast moving animals a bit more quickly, but nosing around Flickr there’s definitely people out there grabbing some pretty impressive wildlife photography with the X-T1. The extra battery life and dual-SD slots are also points in the D7200’s favor. But the X-T1 is substantially more portable, which means a lot when you’re lugging it around outdoors all day, and the weatherproofing means you’ll handle poor weather a lot better.

Brent Singer

Hi Tim.

Thanks for replying. I hear you on the portability and weather sealing. The size of the fuji system is what draws me to it. I’m going to be building a kit up from scratch either way, so I’m trying to gauge what will be a better all round system to commit to. I’m mostly interested in slice of life street photography and a bit of travel. While I don’t get as many opportunities as I’d like to get into the bush / on safari, when I do I love trying my hand at wildlife photography. I looked over the flickr photos (good call on that btw). Most seem pretty good and decent. Although, I do worry that not having as many telephoto lenses available for the fuji system might be a little limiting.

Of the posts I read on using the Xt-1 for wildlife, the criticisms I found where about it lacking the telephoto options and an autofocus issue. A couple of posts I found said that they had struggled a little with the Xt-1 autofocus, in that it often prioritizes the background ahead of the subject, especially against foliage, which I guess if you have time you could easily correct manually but more often than not the animal you’re trying to photograph won’t wait for you.

Do you think this is a deal breaker or have I fallen into the trap of doing too much research?

amadou diallo

You’re asking excellent questions, Brent. Outside of shooting pro sporting events for hire, safaris are probably the most gear-specific type of shooting you can do. The D7200 is going to do a far better job of tracking subjects with its AF system than the X-T1. That’s where good DSLRs with advanced phase detect AF excel. Use the 1.3x crop mode on the D7200 and you’ll have AF tracking points across virtually the entire viewfinder. Plus, as you mentioned you’ll have a wider range of telephotos and extenders to choose from.

The question though is how often are you going to be on a safari? Because for street shooting, portraits, weddings, travel, and most other types of photography the X-T1 is going to be great and you’ll be carrying a much smaller kit.

If it was me and I only went on safaris once or twice a year I’d just rent a DSLR and a couple of lenses for those occasions. I use lensrentals.com when I need gear for a particular shoot. There are several other online camera/lens rental shops as well.

Hope that helps.

gallery90

Having owned both, I agree that the performance of the D7200 will surpass the X-T1 for safari…Better IQ, better AF, and a much wider range of lenses (several independent 150-600s and Nikon’s 200-500). Even for lighter shooting, you can get a Tokina 11-20, Sigma 17-50, and a moderate tele zoom and not have too big a kit…And still have the capability of the D7200 when you needed the extra long (rented?) lens.

Artur Dias

Since the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 is now about 100 $ cheaper than the Fujifilm X-T1, which do you think is a better choice? And whcih of them takes better still pictures? You talk about the new version called DMC-GH4R… is it just a firmware update that now comes with the camera, do we have to purchase separately (in spite of buying the camera brand new) or is it the same camera with the internals but with a software tweak?

amadou diallo

The GH4 is a great option if you’ll be shooting a lot of video and want broadcast quality results. For stills shooters the X-T1 offers better image quality, less noise in low light and greater background blur at equivalent apertures and subject distance.

The new GH4 is the same camera with even more pro-level features. Current GH4 owners can get those features with a $100 FW upgrade.

M43 user

More over autofocus of XT-1 as well EM-1 are not so fast and accurate like Panasonic AF`s especially from new Pana GX8.

Would appreciate some guidance on the M43s vs APS-C vs Full Frame debate. Currently shooting an OMD EM5, and I love it until those situations where I get forced into higher ISOs.

I use the 45mm 1.8 and the 12-40mm 2.8 the most and I like everything about the Olympus system (weight / choice of lenses) except low light conditions. How much of a difference would going to a Fuji XT-1 / Pro 2 or a FF Sony really make when you take into account the image stabilization, etc?

amadou diallo

Moving from m4/3 to a full frame Sony would give a huge reduction in high ISO noise. In this review we actually gave direct comparisons showing the noise difference between the X-T1 and E-M1 (the EM5 would be very similar). If that difference seems minor to you then don’t switch to an APS-C sensor just for noise reduction benefits. If that difference times 2 would sway you then you might want to think about switching to full frame. But be prepared for much bigger, heavier and (for Sony at least) more expensive lenses.

Seems like a decent difference. Probably just need to rent an A7II or a Fuji Pro 2 to see the difference first hand

Scott Jones

Perhaps rent or upgrade to the MKII E-M5 with it’s better IS and updated firmware before you make the jump to a different platform. The IS will let you compensate with shutter speed to reduce the required ISO, it may be enough to get the results you are after without the expense of switching systems. It will also give you an apples to apples comparison since you would use the same glass while you were comparing.

Yep, great suggestion. I’ll also try to rent a Sony a7II to see how much of a difference it makes.

I don’t understand every single one of the technical intricacies, but when lens / IBIS / etc all pan out in the real world it seems like its more of a 1 or 1.5 stop difference. Not sure if its worth all the effort.

Part of the trick here is to understand the combination of ISO, aperture and shutter speed you are after. The X-T1 will have less noise than the E-M1 at the same ISO, but what shutter speed will you need on the X-T1 at the aperture to get the depth of field you want? Their f/1.8 lenses are fast, but will give a very narrow depth of field when shot wide open. And you can’t hand-hold below some threshold shutter speed. So some of the exposure math for a given shooting situation and see what works and what doesn’t.

If you figure the E-M1’s IS is worth 4 stops, the X-T1 would need to be at 4 times the ISO, all else equal.

Awesome, super useful. I’ll spend some time exploring where I’m getting into high ISOs with my current setup.

The more I read, the more I’m coming to a similar conclusion as you with the IBIS / depth of field… its a matter of trade-offs, and most likely a difference of 1 to 1.5 stops at best. Thanks for the info!

Sean T

It also matters what you’re shooting – my son’s rapid movement won’t allow IBIS or OSS to work at all, so I need the extra ISO (along with a fast lens, say f/2) to get a good shot, and the larger the sensor the better off I’ll be (hello D750). But if you’re after low-light static work (cityscapes for example) then IBIS would be wonderful.

lobotomisedjournalist

Given that you don’t even mention the Sony A7II or the A7rII, or any of the many recent lens releases from either Sony or Zeiss, but are up to date enough to mention the much later released Sony A6300, it is very, very obvious that you are distorting the current camera market.

On almost every parameter the Sony A7rII is a much more powerful tool than the Fuji XT 1 and your ‘review’ ought to show that. IQ is considerably better, as is dynamic range, high ISO, IBIS, and many other features. The most obvious advantage of all is, of course, the fact that it is full frame, which given your carps against the small sensor Olympus should now be turned on the comparatively very small sensor Fuji. With carefully chosen lenses the Sony is also only slightly larger than the Fuji, an amazing achievement considering that it includes a sensor more than twice the size and has in body image stabilisation.

Does this mean that one ought to buy the Sony? No, of course not, the Fuji still has the advantage of smaller size, direct controls and smaller long lenses. But if ultimate IQ and narrowing the depth of field are of most importance, the Fuji just does not compete.

But our general argument that full frame cameras are specialist devices still stands. Any person seriously considering buying them is advanced enough in photography to know that what they need will be specific to them, and not a generalist recommendation of the sort we offer.

But you’re right, that section dealing with the A7-series is a bit old, and we’ll tweak it in the near future.

Anthony

“But our general argument that full frame cameras are specialist devices still stands. Any person seriously considering buying them is advanced enough in photography to know that what they need will be specific to them, and not a generalist recommendation of the sort we offer.”

This argument doesn’t really make sense to me. Is the
Fujifilm X-T2 really much easier to use vs an a7 series. Size and price are similar. Does sensor size suddenly make it less useful for a generalist pop?

Greg Van Deusen

The biggest differentiator is that Fuji’s glass far surpasses Sony’s offerings, and without good lenses, what’s the use of an amazing body?

Greg Van Deusen

And also, if you like analog dials instead of Sony’s crazy deep menus, the X-T1 is the way to go. That’s why I switched from Sony to Fuji.

abritton76

You are missing probably the best mirrorless cameras out there the a7rii and for video the a7sii. Infact the a7rii is arguably the best camera in this price range full stop. You really need to update this.

Yep I read it – but i would say the a7 series offer many advantages over the fuji- such as full frame which is a big plus- five axis on sensor stabilisation, far higher ISO capability- esp on the a7sII. Slog 3 etc etc. The a7rii and a7sii are ahead of the fuji and most sites have awarded them with camera of the year.

Tim Barribeau

They’re great cameras, but they’re not best for most people. Our driving mission at the Wirecutter is to recommend products for everyday people. We don’t recommend full frame cameras for the same reason we don’t recommend high-end audiophile gear—it’s specialist products for people who are advanced enough to shop for their own specific needs.

The A7sii and rii are $3000 cameras—and that’s without a lens. But if you’re arguing about pure image quality, what about a Pentax 645D? That’s about the same price, and will produce the cleanest images you’ve ever seen in your life in low ISO environments.

Because it’s about more than sensor size—it’s about what’s the most useful for the largest number of people.

The r-designation cameras are specialist cameras for high resolution work. Unless you’re shooting for printing, it’s a lot of money for more pixels than you need.

The s-designation is for video users, who need full pixel readouts and clean HDMI, gamut controls, and more. Again, specialist use cases.

They’re excellent, excellent cameras. And they deserve the accolades—but those are accolades from industry publications aimed at high-end photographers and super enthusiast amateurs. Which isn’t most people.

It’s also why we don’t recommend full frame cameras for DSLRs either. They’re major investments, and if you’re at a point in your photography life where you’re getting one, you know best what you need to account for, and what makes the best camera for you. Any recommendation we could make would have to be hyper-specific, and filled with dozens of “for this type of situation, this camera would be better instead”.

We also don’t recommend super high-end, multi-thousand dollar speakers; ride-on lawnmowers; work-station laptops; high-end projectors; or touring road bikes. There are really great options out there for all of those, but they’re not for most people.

freediverx

“Our driving mission at the Wirecutter is to recommend products for everyday people. ”

You should incorporate that clarification when you diss superior models because you find them to be too expensive. if you were reviewing cars for “everyday people” it might be valid to exclude BMWs, but it would not be valid to diss BMWs as offering comparable features for more money.

John Miller

The Olympus OMD EM1 and the Fuji XT1 are both getting a bit old. Do you know – or can you speculate – when we will see an updated version of either?

Tim Barribeau

We don’t know anything for sure, but if I were to guess, it would be either this September to coincide with Photokina, or in January for CES. But at the same time, the camera manufacturers haven’t been sticking to the tradeshow schedules as much, so it could just be whenever they feel up for it.

Spencer Syfrig

Information about the XT-2 has started leaking out, with an apparent announcement of June.

Bill Rankin

Lots of great information here. I am looking for a (preferably) mirrorless camera, full size sensor or APS-C that has a mic and headphone jack. The only one I have found is GH3, but the sensor is slightly smaller. Is there such a camera as described? Thanks!

Tim Barribeau

The Sony A7s and A7s II both match that, though they’re on the pricey side.

Franco Cappuccio

Any update scheduled for this èage? a6300, X-Pro2, GH8 and PEN-F are all out since a while.

You know the Fujifil X-Pro2 has both an Optical and EVF viewfinder, right? Half of your main argument against it is the optical viewfinder, but that is in addition to he EVF. Granted the magnification on he X-T1 is greater, but your argument is still misleading.

amadou diallo

The X-Pro2 is a great camera, but as we mentioned it’s a pretty specialized tool. For most of our readers we think an optical viewfinder on a rangfinder-style camera is going to be less versatile than an EVF. And yes, the X-Pro 2 has an EVF option but if you don’t want an optical viewfinder in the first place, there are less expensive options, like our main pick, that are also great.

Matt

How is an optical viewfinder in addition to an EVF less versatile? Isn’t that, by definition, more versatile?

amadou diallo

If you’re going to use zoom lenses and/or prime lenses at a portrait focal length or greater, the optical viewfinder will have some shortcomings; in which case you’re paying a lot of extra money for an EVF experience you could have on our less expensive main pick. Perhaps a better way of putting it is the X-T1 fits a wider variety of needs more economically than the X-Pro2.

ChiPhi

And you also understand that the X-Pro2 has an OVF + Electronic Range Finder (ERF) option that essentially gives you the best of both worlds right? It is no longer an “either or”.
You also mention cost as another reason to remove the X-Pro2 from consideration but hopefully your readers understand that to get the advertised performance from the X-T2, you have to buy the ‘optional’ grip which then makes the camera that much bigger AND more expensive than the X-Pro2.
Lastly, as is typical Fuji, the same models get firmware updates to make them even better and with the release of the X-T2, the Fuji X-Pro2 received an update to make it equivalent in AF points, speed (algorithm) et al. All that is ‘missing’ is 4K which was omitted by design and the rarely used AF-C customization.
However, agreed that the two flagships in the Fuji lineup are for different shooters and the X-T2 is more of the general purpose tool for most everyday shooters.
Either way, great write up as I am sure it took a lot of work and should help many in their decisions.

nikhil rajpurohit

Just like always, another knowledge-enhancing article, can you also do a review-roundup about best cameras for movie-making or more specifically amateur movie-making? I want to buy a camera which can give great video shooting capabilities with good battery life, interchangeable lenses. If you have something in your mind, please share it. t
Thanks

i’d love this too! looking for something that will be good for youtube vlogs and video for my concerts! so good battery life, no overheating…

gallery90

Last summer I felt that my pair of Nikon D300s were getting a bit long in the tooth (8 years) so decided to see if an X-T1 with 40-150 could work for my soccer shooting at the shorter focal length (replacing a D300 with a 70-200 zoom), while I also used a D300 for a 120-300 zoom. The X-T1 was still a train wreck. Sure — the IQ was great, but that only counts if you have keepers. I only had 3 keepers out of 84 X-T1 shots. I shot about three times the frames with the D300/120-300 with a keeper rate of better than 15%.

Where the X-T1 failed was any time that there were players crossing in front of the main subject. Not having the D300’s “focus tracking with lock-on” the X-T1 couldn’t maintain focus on subject. Added to this was all the overhead inside the camera trying to process images. Apparently, the sensor and associated hardware and firmware can’t handle the double duties of supporting both the viewfinder and the image recording functions. True…Low light IQ with the D300 was not up to the X-T1s. But all the picture taking elements of the 8-year-old D300 were far superior to the X-T1 in challenging conditions.

Disgusted with the X-T1, I purchased a D7200 to replace one of the D300s. The D7200 totally surpassed the X-T1 in every situation I shoot in. So I bought the 2nd D7200 to replace the 2nd D300. And updated several of my Nikon mount lenses.

Just this week I traded the X-T1 and one of the D7200s in on a D500.

Lest you think that I’m down on Fuji X…After a year overlap I replaced a Leica M9 with an X-Pro1 because I could shoot in more situations. I added an X-Pro2 the day I could get my hands on one. With 7 X-mount lens and an X100s as a walkaround I’m pretty familiar with the capabilities of the Fuji line.

Yes…An X-T1 can replace a DSLR for some shooting (travel, some events, kids, (slow) puppies, animals at the zoo, etc. But it certainly isn’t a replacement for a DSLR in demanding situation.

DG

Good post. I bought an XT-1 last year. I still shoot film as well as digital and felt the look of the XT-1 would complement my film shooting. The images are awesome. I think it’s a great camera. I attached old manual glass on it as well. I think it’s an amazing camera for stills and walking around but for action/sports I picked up a Canon dslr again. Bangs focus faster. As much as I love fuji especially it’s jpegs if I’m doing the whole manual thing I rather shoot film and use the canon for all the action.

EricH

The Fujifilm X-T2 was announced today. It’s not just an X-T1 with more megapixels, it has been improved in nearly every way. I mention this not to sell you on the X-T2 but now is the time to shop for a used X-T1 as many Fuji shooters will likely sell their old models for the new one.

Matthew Burnett

Great update – I’m seriously considering upgrading from my X-Pro 1.
One question – I’ve heard that not all lenses benefit from the fast autofocus on the new X-T2. Could you give some recommendations about which lenses work best with the X-T2 and which might not benefit so much?
My favourite X-Mount lenses are the 35mm f1.4 and the 10-24 f4 and I’m considering buying the Zeiss Touit macro lens – but not if the autofocus is going to be poor on the X-T2!

amadou diallo

As we mention in the guide, you’ll want one of Fuji’s “LM” lenses to take full advantage of the new AF system. In our testing the F1.4 primes were just marginally faster and better at focus tracking on the X-T2 compared to the X-T1. IT’s with the LM lenses that you’ll see a dramatic difference.

In my use, all lenses benfit from the XT2’s focusing capabilities, not all are as fast of course, I haven’t tried the zeiss though. Best lenses are the newer ones. Fastest lenses are: 16mm f1.4, 23mm f2, 35mm f2, 90mm f2, 50-140, and 100-400mm.

Funkmonkey

Hi there, if you upgrade from the X-Pro1 to the X-T2 or X-Pro2 you are going to see a drastic improvement in AF accross all your lens. The first generation X Camera’s ie X-Pro1 and X-E1 were slower than the X-T1 and X-E2, which also received further firmware upgrades that improved performance. I moved from an X-T1 to an X-T2 and again you will see an AF improvement. It is more marked on newer lens such as 50-140 and 90mm (and others apparently, I don’t own them but the 16, 23/35F2’s and 100-400mm) but I also own the 35 F1.4, 10-24mm and 56mm and all of these have seen a big improvement since the X-T1, and compared to the X-Pro1 even more. Try and get into a shop and take your lenses with you as proof is in the pudding. My favorite lens in the line up is the 35mm F1.4 and while its still noisy due to its AF mechanism it no longer hunts, and its lightening fast. Is it as fast as the 50-140mm no, but then it does not need to be. I use 35mm for street and family portraits and for that stuff is more than fast enough and incredibly accurate. If I tried to shoot sports with it, it would probably struggle, but I have not even tried because that focal length does not get me close enough to the action and image quality would suffer from inevitable digital cropping. So for that stuff I use the 50-140 which is super super fast. Almost disconcertingly fast as in did that actually focus it seemed to quick. Chimp, holy cow that’s sharp, move on.

pawhite524

Amadou,
Thank you for another terrific review! I always enjoy your excellent use of objective data with your inclusion of what it is like to be a photographer using these cameras in ways a photographer does.

There is one area where you and I are out of synch, however [oh were it such that this was the worst our lives would be asked to endure ;^) ]. The issue is touch screen rear monitors. I do not see the absence of this on the XT-2 or any other camera as a flaw as gets identified by so many camera reviews. At the risk of sounding like a luddite, I believe this is just another bit of tech to break down.

I have experienced a rudimentary monitor screen malfunction make an expensive camera (> $1300.00 new) worthless as a trade because the LCD screen lost some functionality. At the time it had a trade value of $500.00.

On Sept 19, Olympus announced the “development” of the E-M1 II. As of October 22 Olympus has not announced a price or shipping date. If you are seeing it listing as available on a site make sure you’re not looking at the original Mk I or the E-M10 Mk II. The camera names are confusingly similar.

smileman

It’s not in your what to look forward to, but the Canon EOS M5 looks quite interesting (particularly how it implements touch screen focus when using the viewfinder). Hope you guys review it.

Tim Barribeau

We’re not looking at it in this guide because the small lens selection makes it pretty inappropriate for investing so much in an ecosystem. If you’re dropping more than $1000 on a camera, you should be able to choose from more than a half-dozen native lenses.

Dennis Krøger

You have all the EF-S lenses fully functional with a simple adapter. I don’t see the problem.

TheCoyote

As a former EOS M owner who has gone to Fuji, I can tell you that Canon EF and EF-S lenses adapted to EF-M suck from a performance perspective. They are typically VERY slow to focus. And you’re giving up the size/weight advantage of the mirrorless system at that point.

freediverx

ALL Canon compact cameras are slow to focus. Don’t blame it on the lenses.

bmkrepel

I’m strongly considering the EOS M5 because I’m looking for a smaller option than my 7D that has wireless sharing that can work with my expansive collection of EF and EF-S lenses (via adapter). It fits those specs, but I’m wondering if I’d be happy or regret it for other reasons that a review could help me figure out.

Tim Barribeau

The shortage of native lenses mean that it isn’t right for what we’re looking for in this guide, but the DPReview writeup for the M5 is pretty in-depth, and will probably answer most of your questionshttps://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-m5-review/7
The M-range has definitely improved from its early days, though the high ISO quality still seems kinda rough.

You can also mount Canon lenses on other brands of camera, notably through adapters from Speedbones and Kipon, but the amount of autofocus and other electronic information that comes through is pretty variable.

freediverx

Do you care about fast AF or a good manual focusing experience? if you answered yes to either stay away from Canon compact cameras.

freediverx

The EOS 5 has all of the flaws common to Canon’s entire line of “prosumer” cameras. Canon is not remotely competitive in this space.

Andy Lang

One quick addition/correction…there in fact is a quick-access shortcut for formatting the SD card in the X-T2. In shooting mode, hold down the Trash button for 3s, and then keep holding it while you click the rear command dial in. (Usually, when people swear up and down this doesn’t work, they’re either not holding Trash long enough, or trying to use the front dial or the OK button, rather than the rear.

Once you click the dial, it’ll ask you to select which card to format, and to confirm. It’s still a few presses, but that’s a safety thing; formatting is NOT a thing you want to do inadvertently. The only request I’d have for an improvement would be to be able to format both cards at once, or at least sequentially without having to do the shortcut a second time.

Tim Barribeau

Thanks for the info! We’ll add that to the piece.

grahamneray

The price appears to have gone up to $2,200. Any idea why? Based on this, would it make sense to buy the ‘body only’ version for $1600 and buy a lens separately? If so, any recommendation on lens?

Tim Barribeau

What’s happened is that because Amazon has sold out, it’s showing a listing from someone who still has it in stock. This time it’s “Ships from and sold by ThePixelConnection” who are charging $2200. If you scroll down the page a little on the right, you can see the $1900 Amazon buy button that says “Sold by: Amazon.com” If you buy that now, Amazon will send you one when they restock, and charge you the $1900 price.

It’s strange to see the hybrid viewfinder of the X-Pro 2 being referred to simply as an “optical finder”. Optical finder does’t mean anything. The X-Pro series is a rangefinder camera with the advantages of such a finder:
-No black out, see the moment of exposure
-Infinite depth of field in the finder, ability to simultaneously compose for near and far subjects.
-Framelines is a great compositional aid. See what is excluded in the finder. Another effect of this type of finder is to be able to see outside frame lines.
– You get the advantages of both rangefinder and SLR viewfinders with the flick of a finger.

Also ergonomic advantages.
-Viewfinder is in the corner, doesn’t cover the photographers face, enabling better contact with the world.
– The X-Pro2 has all right hand controls. One never has to lower the camera or change grip. The X-T has ISO on the left why the user has to let go of the camera (left hand should always support the weight being underneath).
– X-Pro 2 has better build quality and higher grade finish. Take a look on the bottom plate on an X-T2, it is split down the centre, whereas an X-Pro2 is one solid plate.

amadou diallo

Rangefinder-style shooting has its benefits, including those you mentioned. In the guide we write “The hybrid viewfinder lets you choose between an optical scene view and an electronic one.” Our later reference to the optical finder is to highlight that, unlike our top pick, the X-Pro 2 offers the option of an optical, rangefinder-style view.

freediverx

Fuji’s hybrid viewfinders are ingenious, but the experience of manually focusing with them pales in comparison to that of a Leica, including the Leica Q’s EVF.

freediverx

None of these cameras have a rangefinder. You’re referring to an optical viewfinder, which has both advantages and disadvantages compared to a quality EVF.

osynlig fog

True it doesn’t have a an optical rangefinder. But in practice it works just like a rangefinder camera. I haven’t met anyone who ever bought a Mamiya 7 or Leica for the focus system. The main thing is viewfinder position, no black out, frame line composition, infinite depth of field and being able to see outside the frame. An X-Pro or Contax tick all these boxes.

The X-Pro is a rangefinder camera.

osynlig fog

The Xpro 2 has a rangefinder. A rangefinder is simply a device for determining distance to subject. Hence any camera with an autofocus system has a rangefinder. Just calling it “optical finder does not suffice at all. A Nikon D5 has an optical finder too, but of SLR design.

Rangefinder camera can be used to talk about a class of camera with the benefits I mentioned, no black out, framelines, infinite depth of field et c. Leica M, Contax G2, Lots of compact cameras, Fujifilm X-Pro, are all cameras that share basic viewfinder type – a window through the camera, through which one looks in order to compose the image.

If we should really get into semantics then no camera is a rangefinder. A rangefinder is a military device used to aid the aiming of cannons.

Mahinthan So

“We typically avoid recommending full-frame models such as the Sony α7 series. As impressive as they are—squeezing pro-level features and performance into amazingly small cameras—these specialized cameras are designed for a small segment of users with specific needs. ”

I don’t understand this.. So confusing. In my opinion Fuji is good for jpeg and skin tone every thing else i like a7 series. Landscape shooters can’t live with X-Trans sensor and its incompatibility with popular raw converters

freediverx

“Landscape shooters can’t live with X-Trans sensor and its incompatibility with popular raw converters”

That is outdated information based on Adobe failing to provide suitable RAW conversion capabilities for non-Bayer sensors. That has since been resolved.

m hart

I’m sorry but I don’t agree with your conclusions-in spite of your arguments about cost and “complexity”, the Sony mirrorless system is simply the best. And every month or so a new E mount lens is introduced from Zeiss or Sony or Voigtlander that equals or bests what is available in the marketplace today. Also if you are willing recommend a camera costing $2000 I think you start to lose argument about pro versus amateur products. The Sony AR11 is one amazing camera and given the ever increasing number of superb E mount lenses it should be recognized as the best mirrorless camera.

Tomas Samot

it’s shit not the best. SOOOOOO many sony users run away to fuji or panasonic.

aC

no

sskoutas

I shoot professionally, and I’ve shot Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Panasonic, and Sony. After considerable hours with all of these systems, I’ve settled on Canon, Sony, and Metabones adapters. I refuse to knock Fuji… their hardware and images are awesome. But no one who is serious about photography can say Sony is shit with a straight face. That’s a perspective of pure ignorance.

freediverx

Sony cameras deliver great image quality, but they come with terrible ergonomics, haptics, menu systems, and responsiveness. An RX1R2 is great for pixel-peepers, but it’s painfully cumbersome to use for anyone wanting to venture outside of Program mode.

Tomas Samot

Samsung NX1 still better even after 2 years of released.

KG

Samsung cameras are pants

Larry Johnstone

NX1: Still the best hybrid mirrorless camera on planet earth. Period.

Clark Starr

I’m looking at a few options at different price points. I’d really like a strong AF system (as I’ll be taking a lot of pics of my kid playing various outdoor and indoor sports). While a DSLR would probably be best, this will be a “family” camera and I think we want a smaller form-factor. Any thoughts on these?

a6300 vs. O-MD E-M5 II (the plus at this price point is weather sealing–but also curious if people think that’s feature worth paying for).

a6000 vs. O-MD E-M10 II (the deals here are pretty great now!)

I’ve pawed the a6000 and the M10. The Olympus felt a little more substantial, but reading up makes me think the Sonys will be generally better from an AF perspective. Of course, I may be splitting hairs. I’m no professional and they likely both will yield amazing results compared to what I currently have (old DMC-TZ5 point and shoot).

I’m open to other suggestions of course (Panasonic G7? Kind of DSLR-ish in size).

Tim Barribeau

Unless you’re spending a lot of time in splashy damp conditions, chances are you won’t need the waterproofing. And between the a6000 and E-M10 II, I think the a6000 probably gets the nod for better continuous autofocus for fast moving kids playing sports, but the Olympus is better for stabilization which may be better for keeping steady when you shoot them. So both definitely have their strengths and weaknesses.

Clark Starr

FYI: wound up with a used OMD EM1 (not the mark II, the original). It was in pristine shape, hardly used. Compared it for a long time with the a6000, a Panasonic GX85, and a OMD EM5 II. Just felt way way better in my hand than those three (not so much the EM5 II, but it was much much cheaper). I have another three weeks to decide if I keep it. So far I like what I’m seeing. Shot my kid playing soccer and tennis. While maybe the a6000 would be better from an AF perspective, it would likely be a small difference. Some of the portraits and landscapes I’ve done with it are pretty amazing (making me look like a better photog than I am!).

Tim Barribeau

That’s fantastic to hear, and I’m glad you’re getting good use out of it so far. But I disagree with you on one key point—the camera isn’t making you look like a better photographer than you are, it’s showing exactly how good of a photographer you are! Every photographer shoots many bad shots for each good one, and you only see the final result after careful selection and often huge amounts of editing. So if it’s an amazing photo? You’re the one who took it.

Clark Starr

Ha! Thanks. A good perspective. I’m looking forward to learning more about it and how to use it. So much customization available.

Akshay Anand

Hi there. Thanks for the in-depth review. I was considering buying the Olympus EM-D M5 Mk II until I read this. I’ve also seen some reviews about the Fuji X-T20. In your opinion, how does the X-T20 stack up, especially against the X-T1 which was your runner up?

freediverx

While I can understand dinging the Leica Q for its high price, it’s clear from your glib dismissal of the camera that you’ve never used one nor understand what it has to offer.

Leica’s optics are unmatched by any other manufacturer. Unlike many competing lenses, Leica’s offer superlative color accuracy and consistent, edge to edge sharpness EVEN when shooting wide open.

At the moment, there is no other camera—at any price—that offers the Leica Q’s combination of portability, light weight, ergonomics, responsiveness, image quality, autofocus performance, and manual focus control.

I give you credit for giving Fuji high marks instead of something from Canon or Sony, but you should do a better job of educating yourself before trashing a product you know so little about. Your attitude towards Leica is reminiscent of the mainstream media’s historical snubbing of Apple products as overpriced fashion items.

GrammaticalErrors

Dang, you really want other people to like your camera.

Franco

I don’t think the author is trying to knock on Leica’s quality at all. Just the price.

$4000+ vs $2000 is a huge difference. While I can appreciate the quality of a Leica, there are only two reasons why I would get the Leica: 1) I have that kind of money to drop without a second thought 2) I’m a professional photographer that makes bank. I’m neither. I would assume most people who frequent this site would agree.